Audrey Brown and the Commonwealth Games

 

Audrey Brown, 1913-2005, a University of Birmingham alumna, won a silver medal at the 1936 Berlin Olympic Games. This was the same year as she was awarded a BA Honours degree in Social and Political Science. Her personal papers, held at the Cadbury Research Library, include medals relating to her sporting success at the ‘Jeux Universitaires Internationau’ in Paris in 1937, as well as badges, photographs and newspaper cuttings.

 

The Commonwealth Games, often referred to as the Friendly Games, were first held in 1930 when Audrey Brown was studying in Birmingham. The Games were known as the ‘British Empire Games’ from 1930 to 1950, the ‘British Empire and Commonwealth Games’ from 1954 to 1966, and the ‘British Commonwealth Games’ from 1970 to 1974. Athletes with disabilities are included as full members of their national teams, making the Commonwealth Games the first fully inclusive international multi-sport event.

 

The 1970 British Commonwealth Games were held in Edinburgh, the first time they had been held in Scotland. 42 teams were represented with Grenada, Guernsey, Malawi, Swaziland and The Gambia competing in the Games for the first time. Australia won the most gold medals – 36 – with England and Canada following with 27 and 18 respectively.

 

Map of the marathon route, with accompanying ephemera relating to the Games.

 

Reference: ATH/JJ/7/6/4

Original Caption: White House Blue Room, 02/20/1950

 

Created By: National Archives and Records Administration. Office of Presidential Libraries. Harry S. Truman Library. (04/01/1985 - )

 

From: Series: Photographs Relating to the Administration, Family, and Personal Life of Harry S. Truman, compiled 1957 - 2004, documenting the period 1849 - 2004

 

Contact: Harry S. Truman Library (NLHST), 500 West U.S. Highway 24, Independence, MO, 64050-1798. PHONE: 816-268-8272; FAX: 816-268-8295; EMAIL:truman.reference@nara.gov.

 

Production Dates: 02/20/1950

 

Scope and Content Note: Detail of the north wall of the Blue Room after the removal of the plaster from the walls. The jambs of the doorways to the Red Room (left) and Green Room (right) have also been removed. This is from a series of photographs of the renovation of the White House.

 

Persistent URL: arcweb.archives.gov/arc/action/ExternalIdSearch?id=6982087

 

Truman Library URL: www.trumanlibrary.org/photographs/view.php?id=1984

 

Access Restrictions: Unrestricted

 

Use Restrictions: Unrestricted

Part of a collection deposited by Roland Antonelli in 2015

Collection includes documents relating to Antonelli businesses and Ancoats

GB127.MISC/1281

The description and specifications relate to the Pitts Special as this is an identical aircraft to the S1 and S2S.

 

The Pitts Special is a light aerobatic biplane designed by Curtis Pitts. It has accumulated many competition wins since its first flight in 1944. The Pitts Special dominated world aerobatic competition in the 1960s and 1970s and, even today, remains a potent competition aircraft and is a favourite for many an aerobatic pilot.

 

General characteristics

 

•Crew: Two

•Length: 18 ft 9 in (5.71 m)

•Wingspan: 20 ft 0 in (6.10 m)

•Height: 6 ft 7⅓ in (2.02 m)

•Wing area: 125 ft² (11.6 m²)

•Empty weight: 1,150 lb (521 kg)

•Max takeoff weight: 1,625 lb (737 kg)

•Powerplant: 1× Textron Lycoming AEIO-540-D4A5 flat-six air cooled piston engine, 260 hp (194 kW)

 

Performance

 

•Never exceed speed: 182 knots (210 mph, 338 km/h)

•Cruise speed: 152 knots (175 mph, 282 km/h) (max cruise)

•Stall speed: 52 knots (60 mph, 97 km/h)

•Range: 277 NM (319 mi, 513 km)

•Service ceiling: 21,000 ft (6,400 m)

•Rate of climb: 2,700 ft/min (13.7 m/s)

•Wing loading: 13.0 lb/ft² (63.6 kg/m²)

•Power/mass: 0.16 hp/lb (0.26 kW/kg)

 

Text and specifications based on Wikipedia article under the Creative Commons License for non-profit use.

The description and specifications relate to the Pitts Special as this is an identical aircraft to the S1 and S2S.

 

The Pitts Special is a light aerobatic biplane designed by Curtis Pitts. It has accumulated many competition wins since its first flight in 1944. The Pitts Special dominated world aerobatic competition in the 1960s and 1970s and, even today, remains a potent competition aircraft and is a favourite for many an aerobatic pilot.

 

General characteristics

 

•Crew: Two

•Length: 18 ft 9 in (5.71 m)

•Wingspan: 20 ft 0 in (6.10 m)

•Height: 6 ft 7⅓ in (2.02 m)

•Wing area: 125 ft² (11.6 m²)

•Empty weight: 1,150 lb (521 kg)

•Max takeoff weight: 1,625 lb (737 kg)

•Powerplant: 1× Textron Lycoming AEIO-540-D4A5 flat-six air cooled piston engine, 260 hp (194 kW)

 

Performance

 

•Never exceed speed: 182 knots (210 mph, 338 km/h)

•Cruise speed: 152 knots (175 mph, 282 km/h) (max cruise)

•Stall speed: 52 knots (60 mph, 97 km/h)

•Range: 277 NM (319 mi, 513 km)

•Service ceiling: 21,000 ft (6,400 m)

•Rate of climb: 2,700 ft/min (13.7 m/s)

•Wing loading: 13.0 lb/ft² (63.6 kg/m²)

•Power/mass: 0.16 hp/lb (0.26 kW/kg)

 

Text and specifications based on Wikipedia article under the Creative Commons License for non-profit use.

Ganesha, also spelled Ganesh, and also known as Ganapati and Vinayaka, is a widely worshipped deity in the Hindu pantheon. His image is found throughout India and Nepal. Hindu sects worship him regardless of affiliations. Devotion to Ganesha is widely diffused and extends to Jains, Buddhists, and beyond India.

 

Although he is known by many attributes, Ganesha's elephant head makes him easy to identify. Ganesha is widely revered as the remover of obstacles, the patron of arts and sciences and the deva of intellect and wisdom. As the god of beginnings, he is honoured at the start of rituals and ceremonies. Ganesha is also invoked as patron of letters and learning during writing sessions. Several texts relate mythological anecdotes associated with his birth and exploits and explain his distinct iconography.

 

Ganesha emerged as a distinct deity in the 4th and 5th centuries CE, during the Gupta Period, although he inherited traits from Vedic and pre-Vedic precursors. He was formally included among the five primary deities of Smartism (a Hindu denomination) in the 9th century. A sect of devotees called the Ganapatya arose, who identified Ganesha as the supreme deity. The principal scriptures dedicated to Ganesha are the Ganesha Purana, the Mudgala Purana, and the Ganapati Atharvashirsa.

 

ETYMOLOGY AND OTHER NAMES

Ganesha has been ascribed many other titles and epithets, including Ganapati and Vighneshvara. The Hindu title of respect Shri is often added before his name. One popular way Ganesha is worshipped is by chanting a Ganesha Sahasranama, a litany of "a thousand names of Ganesha". Each name in the sahasranama conveys a different meaning and symbolises a different aspect of Ganesha. At least two different versions of the Ganesha Sahasranama exist; one version is drawn from the Ganesha Purana, a Hindu scripture venerating Ganesha.

 

The name Ganesha is a Sanskrit compound, joining the words gana, meaning a group, multitude, or categorical system and isha, meaning lord or master. The word gaņa when associated with Ganesha is often taken to refer to the gaņas, a troop of semi-divine beings that form part of the retinue of Shiva. The term more generally means a category, class, community, association, or corporation. Some commentators interpret the name "Lord of the Gaņas" to mean "Lord of Hosts" or "Lord of created categories", such as the elements. Ganapati, a synonym for Ganesha, is a compound composed of gaṇa, meaning "group", and pati, meaning "ruler" or "lord". The Amarakosha, an early Sanskrit lexicon, lists eight synonyms of Ganesha : Vinayaka, Vighnarāja (equivalent to Vighnesha), Dvaimātura (one who has two mothers), Gaṇādhipa (equivalent to Ganapati and Ganesha), Ekadanta (one who has one tusk), Heramba, Lambodara (one who has a pot belly, or, literally, one who has a hanging belly), and Gajanana; having the face of an elephant).

 

Vinayaka is a common name for Ganesha that appears in the Purāṇas and in Buddhist Tantras. This name is reflected in the naming of the eight famous Ganesha temples in Maharashtra known as the Ashtavinayak (aṣṭavināyaka). The names Vighnesha and Vighneshvara (Lord of Obstacles) refers to his primary function in Hindu theology as the master and remover of obstacles (vighna).

 

A prominent name for Ganesha in the Tamil language is Pillai. A. K. Narain differentiates these terms by saying that pillai means a "child" while pillaiyar means a "noble child". He adds that the words pallu, pella, and pell in the Dravidian family of languages signify "tooth or tusk", also "elephant tooth or tusk". Anita Raina Thapan notes that the root word pille in the name Pillaiyar might have originally meant "the young of the elephant", because the Pali word pillaka means "a young elephant".

 

In the Burmese language, Ganesha is known as Maha Peinne, derived from Pali Mahā Wināyaka. The widespread name of Ganesha in Thailand is Phra Phikhanet or Phra Phikhanesuan, both of which are derived from Vara Vighnesha and Vara Vighneshvara respectively, whereas the name Khanet (from Ganesha) is rather rare.

 

In Sri Lanka, in the North-Central and North Western areas with predominantly Buddhist population, Ganesha is known as Aiyanayaka Deviyo, while in other Singhala Buddhist areas he is known as Gana deviyo.

 

ICONOGRAPHY

Ganesha is a popular figure in Indian art. Unlike those of some deities, representations of Ganesha show wide variations and distinct patterns changing over time. He may be portrayed standing, dancing, heroically taking action against demons, playing with his family as a boy, sitting down or on an elevated seat, or engaging in a range of contemporary situations.

 

Ganesha images were prevalent in many parts of India by the 6th century. The 13th century statue pictured is typical of Ganesha statuary from 900–1200, after Ganesha had been well-established as an independent deity with his own sect. This example features some of Ganesha's common iconographic elements. A virtually identical statue has been dated between 973–1200 by Paul Martin-Dubost, and another similar statue is dated c. 12th century by Pratapaditya Pal. Ganesha has the head of an elephant and a big belly. This statue has four arms, which is common in depictions of Ganesha. He holds his own broken tusk in his lower-right hand and holds a delicacy, which he samples with his trunk, in his lower-left hand. The motif of Ganesha turning his trunk sharply to his left to taste a sweet in his lower-left hand is a particularly archaic feature. A more primitive statue in one of the Ellora Caves with this general form has been dated to the 7th century. Details of the other hands are difficult to make out on the statue shown. In the standard configuration, Ganesha typically holds an axe or a goad in one upper arm and a pasha (noose) in the other upper arm.

 

The influence of this old constellation of iconographic elements can still be seen in contemporary representations of Ganesha. In one modern form, the only variation from these old elements is that the lower-right hand does not hold the broken tusk but is turned towards the viewer in a gesture of protection or fearlessness (abhaya mudra). The same combination of four arms and attributes occurs in statues of Ganesha dancing, which is a very popular theme.

 

COMMON ATTRIBUTES

Ganesha has been represented with the head of an elephant since the early stages of his appearance in Indian art. Puranic myths provide many explanations for how he got his elephant head. One of his popular forms, Heramba-Ganapati, has five elephant heads, and other less-common variations in the number of heads are known. While some texts say that Ganesha was born with an elephant head, he acquires the head later in most stories. The most recurrent motif in these stories is that Ganesha was created by Parvati using clay to protect her and Shiva beheaded him when Ganesha came between Shiva and Parvati. Shiva then replaced Ganesha's original head with that of an elephant. Details of the battle and where the replacement head came from vary from source to source. Another story says that Ganesha was created directly by Shiva's laughter. Because Shiva considered Ganesha too alluring, he gave him the head of an elephant and a protruding belly.

 

Ganesha's earliest name was Ekadanta (One Tusked), referring to his single whole tusk, the other being broken. Some of the earliest images of Ganesha show him holding his broken tusk. The importance of this distinctive feature is reflected in the Mudgala Purana, which states that the name of Ganesha's second incarnation is Ekadanta. Ganesha's protruding belly appears as a distinctive attribute in his earliest statuary, which dates to the Gupta period (4th to 6th centuries). This feature is so important that, according to the Mudgala Purana, two different incarnations of Ganesha use names based on it: Lambodara (Pot Belly, or, literally, Hanging Belly) and Mahodara (Great Belly). Both names are Sanskrit compounds describing his belly. The Brahmanda Purana says that Ganesha has the name Lambodara because all the universes (i.e., cosmic eggs) of the past, present, and future are present in him. The number of Ganesha's arms varies; his best-known forms have between two and sixteen arms. Many depictions of Ganesha feature four arms, which is mentioned in Puranic sources and codified as a standard form in some iconographic texts. His earliest images had two arms. Forms with 14 and 20 arms appeared in Central India during the 9th and the 10th centuries. The serpent is a common feature in Ganesha iconography and appears in many forms. According to the Ganesha Purana, Ganesha wrapped the serpent Vasuki around his neck. Other depictions of snakes include use as a sacred thread wrapped around the stomach as a belt, held in a hand, coiled at the ankles, or as a throne. Upon Ganesha's forehead may be a third eye or the Shaivite sectarian mark , which consists of three horizontal lines. The Ganesha Purana prescribes a tilaka mark as well as a crescent moon on the forehead. A distinct form of Ganesha called Bhalachandra includes that iconographic element. Ganesha is often described as red in color. Specific colors are associated with certain forms. Many examples of color associations with specific meditation forms are prescribed in the Sritattvanidhi, a treatise on Hindu iconography. For example, white is associated with his representations as Heramba-Ganapati and Rina-Mochana-Ganapati (Ganapati Who Releases from Bondage). Ekadanta-Ganapati is visualized as blue during meditation in that form.

 

VAHANAS

The earliest Ganesha images are without a vahana (mount/vehicle). Of the eight incarnations of Ganesha described in the Mudgala Purana, Ganesha uses a mouse (shrew) in five of them, a lion in his incarnation as Vakratunda, a peacock in his incarnation as Vikata, and Shesha, the divine serpent, in his incarnation as Vighnaraja. Mohotkata uses a lion, Mayūreśvara uses a peacock, Dhumraketu uses a horse, and Gajanana uses a mouse, in the four incarnations of Ganesha listed in the Ganesha Purana. Jain depictions of Ganesha show his vahana variously as a mouse, elephant, tortoise, ram, or peacock.

 

Ganesha is often shown riding on or attended by a mouse, shrew or rat. Martin-Dubost says that the rat began to appear as the principal vehicle in sculptures of Ganesha in central and western India during the 7th century; the rat was always placed close to his feet. The mouse as a mount first appears in written sources in the Matsya Purana and later in the Brahmananda Purana and Ganesha Purana, where Ganesha uses it as his vehicle in his last incarnation. The Ganapati Atharvashirsa includes a meditation verse on Ganesha that describes the mouse appearing on his flag. The names Mūṣakavāhana (mouse-mount) and Ākhuketana (rat-banner) appear in the Ganesha Sahasranama.

 

The mouse is interpreted in several ways. According to Grimes, "Many, if not most of those who interpret Gaṇapati's mouse, do so negatively; it symbolizes tamoguṇa as well as desire". Along these lines, Michael Wilcockson says it symbolizes those who wish to overcome desires and be less selfish. Krishan notes that the rat is destructive and a menace to crops. The Sanskrit word mūṣaka (mouse) is derived from the root mūṣ (stealing, robbing). It was essential to subdue the rat as a destructive pest, a type of vighna (impediment) that needed to be overcome. According to this theory, showing Ganesha as master of the rat demonstrates his function as Vigneshvara (Lord of Obstacles) and gives evidence of his possible role as a folk grāma-devatā (village deity) who later rose to greater prominence. Martin-Dubost notes a view that the rat is a symbol suggesting that Ganesha, like the rat, penetrates even the most secret places.

 

ASSOCIATIONS

 

OBSTACLES

Ganesha is Vighneshvara or Vighnaraja or Vighnaharta (Marathi), the Lord of Obstacles, both of a material and spiritual order. He is popularly worshipped as a remover of obstacles, though traditionally he also places obstacles in the path of those who need to be checked. Paul Courtright says that "his task in the divine scheme of things, his dharma, is to place and remove obstacles. It is his particular territory, the reason for his creation."

 

Krishan notes that some of Ganesha's names reflect shadings of multiple roles that have evolved over time. Dhavalikar ascribes the quick ascension of Ganesha in the Hindu pantheon, and the emergence of the Ganapatyas, to this shift in emphasis from vighnakartā (obstacle-creator) to vighnahartā (obstacle-averter). However, both functions continue to be vital to his character.

 

BUDDHI (KNOWLEDGE)

Ganesha is considered to be the Lord of letters and learning. In Sanskrit, the word buddhi is a feminine noun that is variously translated as intelligence, wisdom, or intellect. The concept of buddhi is closely associated with the personality of Ganesha, especially in the Puranic period, when many stories stress his cleverness and love of intelligence. One of Ganesha's names in the Ganesha Purana and the Ganesha Sahasranama is Buddhipriya. This name also appears in a list of 21 names at the end of the Ganesha Sahasranama that Ganesha says are especially important. The word priya can mean "fond of", and in a marital context it can mean "lover" or "husband", so the name may mean either "Fond of Intelligence" or "Buddhi's Husband".

 

AUM

Ganesha is identified with the Hindu mantra Aum, also spelled Om. The term oṃkārasvarūpa (Aum is his form), when identified with Ganesha, refers to the notion that he personifies the primal sound. The Ganapati Atharvashirsa attests to this association. Chinmayananda translates the relevant passage as follows:

 

(O Lord Ganapati!) You are (the Trinity) Brahma, Vishnu, and Mahesa. You are Indra. You are fire [Agni] and air [Vāyu]. You are the sun [Sūrya] and the moon [Chandrama]. You are Brahman. You are (the three worlds) Bhuloka [earth], Antariksha-loka [space], and Swargaloka [heaven]. You are Om. (That is to say, You are all this).

 

Some devotees see similarities between the shape of Ganesha's body in iconography and the shape of Aum in the Devanāgarī and Tamil scripts.

 

FIRST CHAKRA

According to Kundalini yoga, Ganesha resides in the first chakra, called Muladhara (mūlādhāra). Mula means "original, main"; adhara means "base, foundation". The muladhara chakra is the principle on which the manifestation or outward expansion of primordial Divine Force rests. This association is also attested to in the Ganapati Atharvashirsa. Courtright translates this passage as follows: "[O Ganesha,] You continually dwell in the sacral plexus at the base of the spine [mūlādhāra cakra]." Thus, Ganesha has a permanent abode in every being at the Muladhara. Ganesha holds, supports and guides all other chakras, thereby "governing the forces that propel the wheel of life".

 

FAMILY AND CONSORTS

Though Ganesha is popularly held to be the son of Shiva and Parvati, the Puranic myths give different versions about his birth. In some he was created by Parvati, in another he was created by Shiva and Parvati, in another he appeared mysteriously and was discovered by Shiva and Parvati or he was born from the elephant headed goddess Malini after she drank Parvati's bath water that had been thrown in the river.

 

The family includes his brother the war god Kartikeya, who is also called Subramanya, Skanda, Murugan and other names. Regional differences dictate the order of their births. In northern India, Skanda is generally said to be the elder, while in the south, Ganesha is considered the first born. In northern India, Skanda was an important martial deity from about 500 BCE to about 600 CE, when worship of him declined significantly in northern India. As Skanda fell, Ganesha rose. Several stories tell of sibling rivalry between the brothers and may reflect sectarian tensions.

 

Ganesha's marital status, the subject of considerable scholarly review, varies widely in mythological stories. One pattern of myths identifies Ganesha as an unmarried brahmacari. This view is common in southern India and parts of northern India. Another pattern associates him with the concepts of Buddhi (intellect), Siddhi (spiritual power), and Riddhi (prosperity); these qualities are sometimes personified as goddesses, said to be Ganesha's wives. He also may be shown with a single consort or a nameless servant (Sanskrit: daşi). Another pattern connects Ganesha with the goddess of culture and the arts, Sarasvati or Śarda (particularly in Maharashtra). He is also associated with the goddess of luck and prosperity, Lakshmi. Another pattern, mainly prevalent in the Bengal region, links Ganesha with the banana tree, Kala Bo.

 

The Shiva Purana says that Ganesha had begotten two sons: Kşema (prosperity) and Lābha (profit). In northern Indian variants of this story, the sons are often said to be Śubha (auspiciouness) and Lābha. The 1975 Hindi film Jai Santoshi Maa shows Ganesha married to Riddhi and Siddhi and having a daughter named Santoshi Ma, the goddess of satisfaction. This story has no Puranic basis, but Anita Raina Thapan and Lawrence Cohen cite Santoshi Ma's cult as evidence of Ganesha's continuing evolution as a popular deity.

 

WOSHIP AND FESTIVALS

Ganesha is worshipped on many religious and secular occasions; especially at the beginning of ventures such as buying a vehicle or starting a business. K.N. Somayaji says, "there can hardly be a [Hindu] home [in India] which does not house an idol of Ganapati. [..] Ganapati, being the most popular deity in India, is worshipped by almost all castes and in all parts of the country". Devotees believe that if Ganesha is propitiated, he grants success, prosperity and protection against adversity.

 

Ganesha is a non-sectarian deity, and Hindus of all denominations invoke him at the beginning of prayers, important undertakings, and religious ceremonies. Dancers and musicians, particularly in southern India, begin performances of arts such as the Bharatnatyam dance with a prayer to Ganesha. Mantras such as Om Shri Gaṇeshāya Namah (Om, salutation to the Illustrious Ganesha) are often used. One of the most famous mantras associated with Ganesha is Om Gaṃ Ganapataye Namah (Om, Gaṃ, Salutation to the Lord of Hosts).

 

Devotees offer Ganesha sweets such as modaka and small sweet balls (laddus). He is often shown carrying a bowl of sweets, called a modakapātra. Because of his identification with the color red, he is often worshipped with red sandalwood paste (raktacandana) or red flowers. Dūrvā grass (Cynodon dactylon) and other materials are also used in his worship.

 

Festivals associated with Ganesh are Ganesh Chaturthi or Vināyaka chaturthī in the śuklapakṣa (the fourth day of the waxing moon) in the month of bhādrapada (August/September) and the Gaṇeśa jayanti (Gaṇeśa's birthday) celebrated on the cathurthī of the śuklapakṣa (fourth day of the waxing moon) in the month of māgha (January/February)."

 

GANESH CHATURTI

An annual festival honours Ganesha for ten days, starting on Ganesha Chaturthi, which typically falls in late August or early September. The festival begins with people bringing in clay idols of Ganesha, symbolising Ganesha's visit. The festival culminates on the day of Ananta Chaturdashi, when idols (murtis) of Ganesha are immersed in the most convenient body of water. Some families have a tradition of immersion on the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, or 7th day. In 1893, Lokmanya Tilak transformed this annual Ganesha festival from private family celebrations into a grand public event. He did so "to bridge the gap between the Brahmins and the non-Brahmins and find an appropriate context in which to build a new grassroots unity between them" in his nationalistic strivings against the British in Maharashtra. Because of Ganesha's wide appeal as "the god for Everyman", Tilak chose him as a rallying point for Indian protest against British rule. Tilak was the first to install large public images of Ganesha in pavilions, and he established the practice of submerging all the public images on the tenth day. Today, Hindus across India celebrate the Ganapati festival with great fervour, though it is most popular in the state of Maharashtra. The festival also assumes huge proportions in Mumbai, Pune, and in the surrounding belt of Ashtavinayaka temples.

 

TEMPLES

In Hindu temples, Ganesha is depicted in various ways: as an acolyte or subordinate deity (pãrśva-devatã); as a deity related to the principal deity (parivāra-devatã); or as the principal deity of the temple (pradhāna), treated similarly as the highest gods of the Hindu pantheon. As the god of transitions, he is placed at the doorway of many Hindu temples to keep out the unworthy, which is analogous to his role as Parvati’s doorkeeper. In addition, several shrines are dedicated to Ganesha himself, of which the Ashtavinayak (lit. "eight Ganesha (shrines)") in Maharashtra are particularly well known. Located within a 100-kilometer radius of the city of Pune, each of these eight shrines celebrates a particular form of Ganapati, complete with its own lore and legend. The eight shrines are: Morgaon, Siddhatek, Pali, Mahad, Theur, Lenyadri, Ozar and Ranjangaon.

 

There are many other important Ganesha temples at the following locations: Wai in Maharashtra; Ujjain in Madhya Pradesh; Jodhpur, Nagaur and Raipur (Pali) in Rajasthan; Baidyanath in Bihar; Baroda, Dholaka, and Valsad in Gujarat and Dhundiraj Temple in Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh. Prominent Ganesha temples in southern India include the following: Kanipakam in Chittoor; the Jambukeśvara Temple at Tiruchirapalli; at Rameshvaram and Suchindram in Tamil Nadu; at Malliyur, Kottarakara, Pazhavangadi, Kasargod in Kerala, Hampi, and Idagunji in Karnataka; and Bhadrachalam in Andhra Pradesh.

 

T. A. Gopinatha notes, "Every village however small has its own image of Vighneśvara (Vigneshvara) with or without a temple to house it in. At entrances of villages and forts, below pīpaḹa (Sacred fig) trees [...], in a niche [...] in temples of Viṣṇu (Vishnu) as well as Śiva (Shiva) and also in separate shrines specially constructed in Śiva temples [...]; the figure of Vighneśvara is invariably seen." Ganesha temples have also been built outside of India, including southeast Asia, Nepal (including the four Vinayaka shrines in the Kathmandu valley), and in several western countries.

 

RISE TO PROMINENCE

 

FIRST APEARANCE

Ganesha appeared in his classic form as a clearly recognizable deity with well-defined iconographic attributes in the early 4th to 5th centuries. Shanti Lal Nagar says that the earliest known iconic image of Ganesha is in the niche of the Shiva temple at Bhumra, which has been dated to the Gupta period. His independent cult appeared by about the 10th century. Narain summarizes the controversy between devotees and academics regarding the development of Ganesha as follows:

 

What is inscrutable is the somewhat dramatic appearance of Gaņeśa on the historical scene. His antecedents are not clear. His wide acceptance and popularity, which transcend sectarian and territorial limits, are indeed amazing. On the one hand there is the pious belief of the orthodox devotees in Gaņeśa's Vedic origins and in the Purāṇic explanations contained in the confusing, but nonetheless interesting, mythology. On the other hand there are doubts about the existence of the idea and the icon of this deity" before the fourth to fifth century A.D. ... [I]n my opinion, indeed there is no convincing evidence of the existence of this divinity prior to the fifth century.

 

POSSIBLE INFLUENCES

Courtright reviews various speculative theories about the early history of Ganesha, including supposed tribal traditions and animal cults, and dismisses all of them in this way:

 

In the post 600 BC period there is evidence of people and places named after the animal. The motif appears on coins and sculptures.

 

Thapan's book on the development of Ganesha devotes a chapter to speculations about the role elephants had in early India but concludes that, "although by the second century CE the elephant-headed yakṣa form exists it cannot be presumed to represent Gaṇapati-Vināyaka. There is no evidence of a deity by this name having an elephant or elephant-headed form at this early stage. Gaṇapati-Vināyaka had yet to make his debut."

 

One theory of the origin of Ganesha is that he gradually came to prominence in connection with the four Vinayakas (Vināyakas). In Hindu mythology, the Vināyakas were a group of four troublesome demons who created obstacles and difficulties but who were easily propitiated. The name Vināyaka is a common name for Ganesha both in the Purāṇas and in Buddhist Tantras. Krishan is one of the academics who accepts this view, stating flatly of Ganesha, "He is a non-vedic god. His origin is to be traced to the four Vināyakas, evil spirits, of the Mānavagŗhyasūtra (7th–4th century BCE) who cause various types of evil and suffering". Depictions of elephant-headed human figures, which some identify with Ganesha, appear in Indian art and coinage as early as the 2nd century. According to Ellawala, the elephant-headed Ganesha as lord of the Ganas was known to the people of Sri Lanka in the early pre-Christian era.

 

A metal plate depiction of Ganesha had been discovered in 1993, in Iran, it dated back to 1,200 BCE. Another one was discovered much before, in Lorestan Province of Iran.

 

First Ganesha's terracotta images are from 1st century CE found in Ter, Pal, Verrapuram and Chandraketugarh. These figures are small, with elephant head, two arms, and chubby physique. The earliest Ganesha icons in stone were carved in Mathura during Kushan times (2nd-3rd centuries CE).

 

VEDIC AND EPIC LITERATURE

The title "Leader of the group" (Sanskrit: gaṇapati) occurs twice in the Rig Veda, but in neither case does it refer to the modern Ganesha. The term appears in RV 2.23.1 as a title for Brahmanaspati, according to commentators. While this verse doubtless refers to Brahmanaspati, it was later adopted for worship of Ganesha and is still used today. In rejecting any claim that this passage is evidence of Ganesha in the Rig Veda, Ludo Rocher says that it "clearly refers to Bṛhaspati—who is the deity of the hymn—and Bṛhaspati only". Equally clearly, the second passage (RV 10.112.9) refers to Indra, who is given the epithet 'gaṇapati', translated "Lord of the companies (of the Maruts)." However, Rocher notes that the more recent Ganapatya literature often quotes the Rigvedic verses to give Vedic respectability to Ganesha .

 

Two verses in texts belonging to Black Yajurveda, Maitrāyaṇīya Saṃhitā (2.9.1) and Taittirīya Āraṇyaka (10.1), appeal to a deity as "the tusked one" (Dantiḥ), "elephant-faced" (Hastimukha), and "with a curved trunk" (Vakratuņḍa). These names are suggestive of Ganesha, and the 14th century commentator Sayana explicitly establishes this identification. The description of Dantin, possessing a twisted trunk (vakratuṇḍa) and holding a corn-sheaf, a sugar cane, and a club, is so characteristic of the Puranic Ganapati that Heras says "we cannot resist to accept his full identification with this Vedic Dantin". However, Krishan considers these hymns to be post-Vedic additions. Thapan reports that these passages are "generally considered to have been interpolated". Dhavalikar says, "the references to the elephant-headed deity in the Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā have been proven to be very late interpolations, and thus are not very helpful for determining the early formation of the deity".

 

Ganesha does not appear in Indian epic literature that is dated to the Vedic period. A late interpolation to the epic poem Mahabharata says that the sage Vyasa (Vyāsa) asked Ganesha to serve as his scribe to transcribe the poem as he dictated it to him. Ganesha agreed but only on condition that Vyasa recite the poem uninterrupted, that is, without pausing. The sage agreed, but found that to get any rest he needed to recite very complex passages so Ganesha would have to ask for clarifications. The story is not accepted as part of the original text by the editors of the critical edition of the Mahabharata, in which the twenty-line story is relegated to a footnote in an appendix. The story of Ganesha acting as the scribe occurs in 37 of the 59 manuscripts consulted during preparation of the critical edition. Ganesha's association with mental agility and learning is one reason he is shown as scribe for Vyāsa's dictation of the Mahabharata in this interpolation. Richard L. Brown dates the story to the 8th century, and Moriz Winternitz concludes that it was known as early as c. 900, but it was not added to the Mahabharata some 150 years later. Winternitz also notes that a distinctive feature in South Indian manuscripts of the Mahabharata is their omission of this Ganesha legend. The term vināyaka is found in some recensions of the Śāntiparva and Anuśāsanaparva that are regarded as interpolations. A reference to Vighnakartṛīṇām ("Creator of Obstacles") in Vanaparva is also believed to be an interpolation and does not appear in the critical edition.

 

PURANIC PERIOD

Stories about Ganesha often occur in the Puranic corpus. Brown notes while the Puranas "defy precise chronological ordering", the more detailed narratives of Ganesha's life are in the late texts, c. 600–1300. Yuvraj Krishan says that the Puranic myths about the birth of Ganesha and how he acquired an elephant's head are in the later Puranas, which were composed from c. 600 onwards. He elaborates on the matter to say that references to Ganesha in the earlier Puranas, such as the Vayu and Brahmanda Puranas, are later interpolations made during the 7th to 10th centuries.

 

In his survey of Ganesha's rise to prominence in Sanskrit literature, Ludo Rocher notes that:

 

Above all, one cannot help being struck by the fact that the numerous stories surrounding Gaṇeśa concentrate on an unexpectedly limited number of incidents. These incidents are mainly three: his birth and parenthood, his elephant head, and his single tusk. Other incidents are touched on in the texts, but to a far lesser extent.

 

Ganesha's rise to prominence was codified in the 9th century, when he was formally included as one of the five primary deities of Smartism. The 9th-century philosopher Adi Shankara popularized the "worship of the five forms" (Panchayatana puja) system among orthodox Brahmins of the Smarta tradition. This worship practice invokes the five deities Ganesha, Vishnu, Shiva, Devi, and Surya. Adi Shankara instituted the tradition primarily to unite the principal deities of these five major sects on an equal status. This formalized the role of Ganesha as a complementary deity.

 

SCRIPTURES

Once Ganesha was accepted as one of the five principal deities of Brahmanism, some Brahmins (brāhmaṇas) chose to worship Ganesha as their principal deity. They developed the Ganapatya tradition, as seen in the Ganesha Purana and the Mudgala Purana.

 

The date of composition for the Ganesha Purana and the Mudgala Purana - and their dating relative to one another - has sparked academic debate. Both works were developed over time and contain age-layered strata. Anita Thapan reviews comments about dating and provides her own judgement. "It seems likely that the core of the Ganesha Purana appeared around the twelfth and thirteenth centuries", she says, "but was later interpolated." Lawrence W. Preston considers the most reasonable date for the Ganesha Purana to be between 1100 and 1400, which coincides with the apparent age of the sacred sites mentioned by the text.

 

R.C. Hazra suggests that the Mudgala Purana is older than the Ganesha Purana, which he dates between 1100 and 1400. However, Phyllis Granoff finds problems with this relative dating and concludes that the Mudgala Purana was the last of the philosophical texts concerned with Ganesha. She bases her reasoning on the fact that, among other internal evidence, the Mudgala Purana specifically mentions the Ganesha Purana as one of the four Puranas (the Brahma, the Brahmanda, the Ganesha, and the Mudgala Puranas) which deal at length with Ganesha. While the kernel of the text must be old, it was interpolated until the 17th and 18th centuries as the worship of Ganapati became more important in certain regions. Another highly regarded scripture, the Ganapati Atharvashirsa, was probably composed during the 16th or 17th centuries.

 

BEYOND INDIA AND HINDUISM

Commercial and cultural contacts extended India's influence in western and southeast Asia. Ganesha is one of a number of Hindu deities who reached foreign lands as a result.

 

Ganesha was particularly worshipped by traders and merchants, who went out of India for commercial ventures. From approximately the 10th century onwards, new networks of exchange developed including the formation of trade guilds and a resurgence of money circulation. During this time, Ganesha became the principal deity associated with traders. The earliest inscription invoking Ganesha before any other deity is associated with the merchant community.

 

Hindus migrated to Maritime Southeast Asia and took their culture, including Ganesha, with them. Statues of Ganesha are found throughout the region, often beside Shiva sanctuaries. The forms of Ganesha found in Hindu art of Java, Bali, and Borneo show specific regional influences. The spread of Hindu culture to southeast Asia established Ganesha in modified forms in Burma, Cambodia, and Thailand. In Indochina, Hinduism and Buddhism were practiced side by side, and mutual influences can be seen in the iconography of Ganesha in the region. In Thailand, Cambodia, and among the Hindu classes of the Chams in Vietnam, Ganesha was mainly thought of as a remover of obstacles. Today in Buddhist Thailand, Ganesha is regarded as a remover of obstacles, the god of success.

 

Before the arrival of Islam, Afghanistan had close cultural ties with India, and the adoration of both Hindu and Buddhist deities was practiced. Examples of sculptures from the 5th to the 7th centuries have survived, suggesting that the worship of Ganesha was then in vogue in the region.

 

Ganesha appears in Mahayana Buddhism, not only in the form of the Buddhist god Vināyaka, but also as a Hindu demon form with the same name. His image appears in Buddhist sculptures during the late Gupta period. As the Buddhist god Vināyaka, he is often shown dancing. This form, called Nṛtta Ganapati, was popular in northern India, later adopted in Nepal, and then in Tibet. In Nepal, the Hindu form of Ganesha, known as Heramba, is popular; he has five heads and rides a lion. Tibetan representations of Ganesha show ambivalent views of him. A Tibetan rendering of Ganapati is tshogs bdag. In one Tibetan form, he is shown being trodden under foot by Mahākāla, (Shiva) a popular Tibetan deity. Other depictions show him as the Destroyer of Obstacles, and sometimes dancing. Ganesha appears in China and Japan in forms that show distinct regional character. In northern China, the earliest known stone statue of Ganesha carries an inscription dated to 531. In Japan, where Ganesha is known as Kangiten, the Ganesha cult was first mentioned in 806.

 

The canonical literature of Jainism does not mention the worship of Ganesha. However, Ganesha is worshipped by most Jains, for whom he appears to have taken over certain functions of Kubera. Jain connections with the trading community support the idea that Jainism took up Ganesha worship as a result of commercial connections. The earliest known Jain Ganesha statue dates to about the 9th century. A 15th-century Jain text lists procedures for the installation of Ganapati images. Images of Ganesha appear in the Jain temples of Rajasthan and Gujarat.

 

WIKIPEDIA

A weekend conference on relationships. This is one side of the insert invite card.

Promotional 7Up can featuring a saxophone and other designs relating to the 46th annual Grammy Awards.

Dundalk overwhelm Bangor in All Ireland Final

by Roger Corbett

Bangor’s amazing run in the All Ireland Junior Cup came to an abrupt end when they were comprehensively beaten by Dundalk, eventually losing by 55-5.

Where do you start when trying to relate and absorb the events of Saturday’s final at Chambers Park? Firstly, congratulations to worthy winners Dundalk who nullified the Bangor attack, then went on to produce some stunning plays which racked up no less than 8 tries, each by a different player. For Bangor’s part, they were unable to respond to the intensity of Dundalk’s game, and lacked the cutting edge which their opponents used to great effect.

The day started full of promise, as the strong support from North Down made their way to Chambers Park in Portadown, knowing Bangor would be fielding their best team. Once again, the pundits had Bangor as the underdogs – just as they had done so in the previous three rounds! In confounding the experts earlier, Bangor produced some awesome performances against top quality opposition to get to the final. Dundalk had produced some convincing wins in the early rounds of the competition, but had struggled to get past CIYMS in the semi-final, just managing to squeeze ahead at the second time of asking. However, with a number of key players returning to the side in time for this game, they were now back at full strength and would be a formidable force to contend with.

Having won the toss, captain Jamie Clegg elected to play into the stiff wind in the first half. For the first 5 minutes, Bangor doggedly retained possession and tried to play their way into Dundalk’s half through a series of determined forward moves. However, little ground was made and, when possession was finally lost, the Dundalk back line produced a burst that simply cut through the Bangor defence resulting in an easy touch down under Bangor’s posts for a 7-0 lead.

Bangor stuck to their plan and slowly, but patiently, got their attack moving forward, eventually winning a penalty to the left of Dundalk’s posts, but Mark Widdowson’s kick into the wind drifted just wide of the mark.

The contrast in play between the two teams was becoming clear, with Bangor trying to keep the ball close while Dundalk were throwing it wide. The latter strategy was proving to be the more effective as, with 20 minutes gone, a quick back line move with players looping around resulted in an overlap on the right wing which gave a clear run in to again, score under the posts. A further 9 minutes later, they did it again and, although the Bangor defence had sensed the danger and moved across to cover it, their tackling let them down allowing Dundalk to get over in the right hand corner, taking their lead to 19-0.

By now, Bangor were trying to hang on until half time when they could regroup and come out with the wind at their backs. Dundalk, on the other hand were anxious to press home their advantage and give them a more comfortable lead. To Bangor’s credit, although camped on their own line for lengthy spells, they dug in and managed to hold on until the referee’s half time whistle.

As the teams reappeared from the dressing rooms, it was obvious Bangor were ringing the changes, particularly in the backs. With the wind advantage having lessened considerably, Bangor got the second half underway. It was now Dundalk’s turn to adopt the slow, steady approach, just as Bangor had done earlier. However, their more confident off-loading and support play was, once again, taking play deep into Bangor’s territory. Frustration at not being able to gain possession and take play out of their danger area eventually resulted in a yellow card for Clegg after a succession of penalties. Dundalk kicked the penalty to touch, won their lineout and drove for the line. Although initially held up by the Bangor defence, Dundalk’s repeated drives were eventually rewarded with another converted score, extending their lead to 26-0.

From the touchline, the Bangor faithful had felt that if their players had managed to score first in the second half, they may have been able to mount a fight-back and close the gap to their opponents. As it was, this Dundalk score simply bolstered their confidence and pushed Bangor deeper into trouble. With Bangor still a man down, Dundalk added to the score with a penalty and then another score in the corner. Everything was now working for the Leinster men, as even the difficult touchline conversion into the biting wind successfully split the posts, bringing the score to 36-0.

As the game entered the final quarter, and with Dundalk all but holding the cup, Bangor were now on the ropes. By contrast, the Dundalk players were in almost total control, and were not going to slow down now. In a 10 minute spell, they ran in a further 3 tries, making the scoreline 55-0. By now, any sense of dejection the Bangor supporters may have been feeling was now moved to feelings of sympathy for their players. However, pride was at stake and once again Bangor rallied as the game entered its final minutes. At last, the forwards got within striking distance of the Dundalk line and, although their repeated attacks were repelled, they finally managed to do what their opponents had done so effectively, and quickly passed the ball wide to Davy Charles. Even though they were 55 points ahead, the Dundalk defence made Charles work hard to drive through the tackles and score Bangor’s consolation try, bringing the final score to 55-5.

From Bangor’s point of view, the final score doesn’t tell the whole story of this competition. While the final may have resulted in a sad anti-climax for Bangor, the remarkable journey to get there will be remembered for some time. On the day, Dundalk were by far the better side, and Bangor would have to concede that their game was not up to the usual standard. However, there is no doubt the experience of competing at this level is something to relish and the goal now will be to secure a top four place in the league and try again next year.

Everybody at the club has nothing but the highest respect and praise for what has been achieved this year by not just the 1sts, but all the senior teams, and one poor result isn’t going to change that – the welcome at Upritchard Park for the returning players is testament to that. With that in mind, the players now need to put this disappointment behind them and provide the best possible response against a struggling Portadown side at home in the league next Saturday.

Bangor side: J Leary, A Jackson, P Whyte, F Black, G Irvine, R Latimer, J Clegg, C Stewart, R Armstrong, K Rosson, D Charles, M Aspley, M Weir, M Widdowson, C Morgan

Subs: S Irvine, O McIlmurray, D Kelly, M Rodgers, C Harper, D Fusco, M Thompson

Bangor scores: D Charles (1T)

Dundalk Storm To Title Dundalk 55 v Bangor 5 from KnockOn.ie

Dundalk Scorers: Christopher Scully, Owen McNally, Jonathan Williams, John Smyth, Ultan Murphy, Tiernan Gonnelly, James McConnon and Stephen Murphy 1 try each. Ultan Murphy 6 cons, 1 pen.

Bangor Scorers: David Charles 1 try.

In front of a big crowd at Chambers Park on Saturday afternoon Dundalk delivered a stunning and ruthless display to see off the challenge of Bangor and capture the All Ireland Junior Cup title for the very first time.

Three first half tries had them firmly in control at 19-0 ahead having played with the elements at the Portadown venue during the first half and while the wind dropped somewhat after half time the Dundalk intensity most certainly didn’t as they cut loose scoring five more tries.

Dundalk returned to a heroes welcome at their Mill Road clubhouse on Saturday night after a display of pure brilliance throughout the afternoon.

Precision, pace and skill from the Louth men from start to finish left Bangor playing second fiddle for long periods.

From one of the mosaics installed on columns of the Allmendinger Park pavillion. Per a plaque on the building, this would be one of the student portraits contributed by Slauson middle schoolers in 2012.

Tracy Tran @tracytran shares a tip on recruiting Millennials.

 

T2: Talent Tomorrow

SHRM 2012 Talent Management Conference & Exposition in Washington D.C.

 

For more recruiting tips, visit the Security Clearance Jobs Resource Center:

www.clearancejobs.com/resource_center

...

 

www.ourstyle.life/jennifer-lawrences-confession-about-anx...

In optics, particularly as it relates to film and photography, the depth of field (DOF) is the portion of a scene that appears acceptably sharp in the image. Although a lens can precisely focus at only one distance, the decrease in sharpness is gradual on each side of the focused distance, so that within the DOF, the unsharpness is imperceptible under normal viewing conditions.

 

In some cases, it may be desirable to have the entire image sharp, and a large DOF is appropriate. In other cases, a small DOF may be more effective, emphasizing the subject while de-emphasizing the foreground and background. In cinematography, a large DOF is often called deep focus, and a small DOF is often called shallow focus.

 

The DOF is determined by the camera-to-subject distance, the lens focal length, the lens f-number, and the format size or circle of confusion criterion.

 

For a given format size, at moderate subject distances, DOF is approximately determined by the subject magnification and the lens f-number. For a given f-number, increasing the magnification, either by moving closer to the subject or using a lens of greater focal length, decreases the DOF; decreasing magnification increases DOF. For a given subject magnification, increasing the f-number (decreasing the aperture diameter) increases the DOF; decreasing f-number decreases DOF.

 

When the “same picture” is taken in two different format sizes from the same distance at the same f-number with lenses that give the same angle of view, and the final images (e.g., in prints, or on a projection screen or electronic display) are the same size, the smaller format has greater DOF.

 

Many small-format digital SLR camera systems allow using many of the same lenses on both full-frame and “cropped format” cameras. If the subject distance is adjusted to provide the same field of view at the subject, at the same f-number and final-image size, the smaller format has greater DOF, as with the “same picture” comparison above. If pictures are taken from the same distance using the same f-number, and the final images are the same size, the smaller format has less DOF. If pictures taken from the same subject distance are given the same enlargement, both final images will have the same DOF. The final images will, of course, have different sizes.

 

Cropping an image and enlarging to the same size final image as an uncropped image taken under the same conditions is equivalent to using a smaller format under the same conditions, so the cropped image has less DOF.

 

When focus is set to the hyperfocal distance, the DOF extends from half the hyperfocal distance to infinity, and the DOF is the largest possible for a given f-number.

 

The advent of digital technology in photography has provided additional means of controlling the extent of image sharpness; some methods allow extended DOF that would be impossible with traditional techniques, and some allow the DOF to be determined after the image is made.

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field

 

Correspondence with the Chief Mechanical Engineer, Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, and various military establishments, relating mainly to the supply of lead piping and flanges.

Dated 21st May 1940

 

Cheshire Archives and Local Studies ZCR 245/19

The description and specifications relate to the Pitts Special as this is an identical aircraft to the S1 and S2S.

 

The Pitts Special is a light aerobatic biplane designed by Curtis Pitts. It has accumulated many competition wins since its first flight in 1944. The Pitts Special dominated world aerobatic competition in the 1960s and 1970s and, even today, remains a potent competition aircraft and is a favourite for many an aerobatic pilot.

 

General characteristics

 

•Crew: Two

•Length: 18 ft 9 in (5.71 m)

•Wingspan: 20 ft 0 in (6.10 m)

•Height: 6 ft 7⅓ in (2.02 m)

•Wing area: 125 ft² (11.6 m²)

•Empty weight: 1,150 lb (521 kg)

•Max takeoff weight: 1,625 lb (737 kg)

•Powerplant: 1× Textron Lycoming AEIO-540-D4A5 flat-six air cooled piston engine, 260 hp (194 kW)

 

Performance

 

•Never exceed speed: 182 knots (210 mph, 338 km/h)

•Cruise speed: 152 knots (175 mph, 282 km/h) (max cruise)

•Stall speed: 52 knots (60 mph, 97 km/h)

•Range: 277 NM (319 mi, 513 km)

•Service ceiling: 21,000 ft (6,400 m)

•Rate of climb: 2,700 ft/min (13.7 m/s)

•Wing loading: 13.0 lb/ft² (63.6 kg/m²)

•Power/mass: 0.16 hp/lb (0.26 kW/kg)

 

Text and specifications based on Wikipedia article under the Creative Commons License for non-profit use.

This album by Colin Durrant is of 1930s images and documents relates to British Fermentation's Yeast Factory in Ipswich. Colin has first-hand knowledge of the company that he served over many years. The Works were built on the site of the former Stoke Tide Mill, which, in succession became the Eastern Union Mills and later still Fisons. The premises were converted into the Yeast Factory – one of only two in the country – in 1933.

The operation closed around 1968 with the coming of the new factory at Felixstowe (run by NGSF of the Netherlands). The brand name was ‘Chieftain Yeast’. The yeast production at the Ipswich works was small-scale and the process very different from the process at Felixstowe.

Local companies often commissioned Ipswich photographers to carry out work for them; photographs of staff at work would have been posed to promote the company. The images in this album were probably used in promotional material with some others showing some of the firm’s maltings in London.

 

From: Barry Girling (September 2019)

Interesting article relating to a failed planning application for this site ( www.thisisbradford.co.uk/bradford__district/archive/2001/... ):

First published on Thursday 12 July 2001:

Planners reject the renovation of 17th century former Cromwell stopover

PLANS to renovate an historic farm where Oliver Cromwell once stayed overnight in the 17th century have been rejected.

 

Proposals would have seen Low Hall Farm in Low Hall Road, Horsforth converted into three houses and offices. Councillors welcomed the restoration of the farm house, but said that building an extra 11 houses elsewhere on the site, which is in the Green Belt, were unacceptable.

 

Councillor Brian Cleasby (Lib Dem, Horsforth) said: "We are certainly not unhappy with changing the use and restoring the existing building but we have difficulty with the new buildings. There is enough profit for the developer in the existing properties without adding more houses. There are no exceptional circumstances to warrant this." Coun Clive Fox (Con, Otley and Wharfedale) agreed and added: "This development is over the top."

Dundalk overwhelm Bangor in All Ireland Final

by Roger Corbett

Bangor’s amazing run in the All Ireland Junior Cup came to an abrupt end when they were comprehensively beaten by Dundalk, eventually losing by 55-5.

Where do you start when trying to relate and absorb the events of Saturday’s final at Chambers Park? Firstly, congratulations to worthy winners Dundalk who nullified the Bangor attack, then went on to produce some stunning plays which racked up no less than 8 tries, each by a different player. For Bangor’s part, they were unable to respond to the intensity of Dundalk’s game, and lacked the cutting edge which their opponents used to great effect.

The day started full of promise, as the strong support from North Down made their way to Chambers Park in Portadown, knowing Bangor would be fielding their best team. Once again, the pundits had Bangor as the underdogs – just as they had done so in the previous three rounds! In confounding the experts earlier, Bangor produced some awesome performances against top quality opposition to get to the final. Dundalk had produced some convincing wins in the early rounds of the competition, but had struggled to get past CIYMS in the semi-final, just managing to squeeze ahead at the second time of asking. However, with a number of key players returning to the side in time for this game, they were now back at full strength and would be a formidable force to contend with.

Having won the toss, captain Jamie Clegg elected to play into the stiff wind in the first half. For the first 5 minutes, Bangor doggedly retained possession and tried to play their way into Dundalk’s half through a series of determined forward moves. However, little ground was made and, when possession was finally lost, the Dundalk back line produced a burst that simply cut through the Bangor defence resulting in an easy touch down under Bangor’s posts for a 7-0 lead.

Bangor stuck to their plan and slowly, but patiently, got their attack moving forward, eventually winning a penalty to the left of Dundalk’s posts, but Mark Widdowson’s kick into the wind drifted just wide of the mark.

The contrast in play between the two teams was becoming clear, with Bangor trying to keep the ball close while Dundalk were throwing it wide. The latter strategy was proving to be the more effective as, with 20 minutes gone, a quick back line move with players looping around resulted in an overlap on the right wing which gave a clear run in to again, score under the posts. A further 9 minutes later, they did it again and, although the Bangor defence had sensed the danger and moved across to cover it, their tackling let them down allowing Dundalk to get over in the right hand corner, taking their lead to 19-0.

By now, Bangor were trying to hang on until half time when they could regroup and come out with the wind at their backs. Dundalk, on the other hand were anxious to press home their advantage and give them a more comfortable lead. To Bangor’s credit, although camped on their own line for lengthy spells, they dug in and managed to hold on until the referee’s half time whistle.

As the teams reappeared from the dressing rooms, it was obvious Bangor were ringing the changes, particularly in the backs. With the wind advantage having lessened considerably, Bangor got the second half underway. It was now Dundalk’s turn to adopt the slow, steady approach, just as Bangor had done earlier. However, their more confident off-loading and support play was, once again, taking play deep into Bangor’s territory. Frustration at not being able to gain possession and take play out of their danger area eventually resulted in a yellow card for Clegg after a succession of penalties. Dundalk kicked the penalty to touch, won their lineout and drove for the line. Although initially held up by the Bangor defence, Dundalk’s repeated drives were eventually rewarded with another converted score, extending their lead to 26-0.

From the touchline, the Bangor faithful had felt that if their players had managed to score first in the second half, they may have been able to mount a fight-back and close the gap to their opponents. As it was, this Dundalk score simply bolstered their confidence and pushed Bangor deeper into trouble. With Bangor still a man down, Dundalk added to the score with a penalty and then another score in the corner. Everything was now working for the Leinster men, as even the difficult touchline conversion into the biting wind successfully split the posts, bringing the score to 36-0.

As the game entered the final quarter, and with Dundalk all but holding the cup, Bangor were now on the ropes. By contrast, the Dundalk players were in almost total control, and were not going to slow down now. In a 10 minute spell, they ran in a further 3 tries, making the scoreline 55-0. By now, any sense of dejection the Bangor supporters may have been feeling was now moved to feelings of sympathy for their players. However, pride was at stake and once again Bangor rallied as the game entered its final minutes. At last, the forwards got within striking distance of the Dundalk line and, although their repeated attacks were repelled, they finally managed to do what their opponents had done so effectively, and quickly passed the ball wide to Davy Charles. Even though they were 55 points ahead, the Dundalk defence made Charles work hard to drive through the tackles and score Bangor’s consolation try, bringing the final score to 55-5.

From Bangor’s point of view, the final score doesn’t tell the whole story of this competition. While the final may have resulted in a sad anti-climax for Bangor, the remarkable journey to get there will be remembered for some time. On the day, Dundalk were by far the better side, and Bangor would have to concede that their game was not up to the usual standard. However, there is no doubt the experience of competing at this level is something to relish and the goal now will be to secure a top four place in the league and try again next year.

Everybody at the club has nothing but the highest respect and praise for what has been achieved this year by not just the 1sts, but all the senior teams, and one poor result isn’t going to change that – the welcome at Upritchard Park for the returning players is testament to that. With that in mind, the players now need to put this disappointment behind them and provide the best possible response against a struggling Portadown side at home in the league next Saturday.

Bangor side: J Leary, A Jackson, P Whyte, F Black, G Irvine, R Latimer, J Clegg, C Stewart, R Armstrong, K Rosson, D Charles, M Aspley, M Weir, M Widdowson, C Morgan

Subs: S Irvine, O McIlmurray, D Kelly, M Rodgers, C Harper, D Fusco, M Thompson

Bangor scores: D Charles (1T)

Dundalk Storm To Title Dundalk 55 v Bangor 5 from KnockOn.ie

Dundalk Scorers: Christopher Scully, Owen McNally, Jonathan Williams, John Smyth, Ultan Murphy, Tiernan Gonnelly, James McConnon and Stephen Murphy 1 try each. Ultan Murphy 6 cons, 1 pen.

Bangor Scorers: David Charles 1 try.

In front of a big crowd at Chambers Park on Saturday afternoon Dundalk delivered a stunning and ruthless display to see off the challenge of Bangor and capture the All Ireland Junior Cup title for the very first time.

Three first half tries had them firmly in control at 19-0 ahead having played with the elements at the Portadown venue during the first half and while the wind dropped somewhat after half time the Dundalk intensity most certainly didn’t as they cut loose scoring five more tries.

Dundalk returned to a heroes welcome at their Mill Road clubhouse on Saturday night after a display of pure brilliance throughout the afternoon.

Precision, pace and skill from the Louth men from start to finish left Bangor playing second fiddle for long periods.

Track and Field archives

 

The National Athletics Archive is held at the Cadbury Research Library, University of Birmingham, and comprises an extensive volume of archival materials. These papers primarily relate to the history and development of athletics in the United Kingdom throughout the 1800s and 1900s. In addition to organisational collections, such as the papers of the Amateur Athletics Association, the National Athletics Archive includes various discrete collections of individual athletes. These include papers relating to Sydney Wooderson MBE, 1914-2006. Wooderson was an English athlete who was dubbed ‘The Mighty Atom’. His athletics career peaked in the 1930s and 1940s and he set the world mile record of 04:06:40 at London’s Motspur Park on 28 August 1937. This record stood for nearly five years.

 

The collection also includes ephemeral and grey literature relating to various athletics clubs, meetings and events. Papers relating to major athletics championships include material generated during the 1958 British Empire and Commonwealth Games held in Cardiff. These Games introduced the ‘Queen’s Baton Relay’ which has been conducted as a prelude to every British Empire and Commonwealth Games since.

 

Programmes and manuscript results compiled by the athlete and coach, Dennis Cullum, 1913-1985.

 

Reference: ATH/DC/2/1

Dundalk overwhelm Bangor in All Ireland Final

by Roger Corbett

Bangor’s amazing run in the All Ireland Junior Cup came to an abrupt end when they were comprehensively beaten by Dundalk, eventually losing by 55-5.

Where do you start when trying to relate and absorb the events of Saturday’s final at Chambers Park? Firstly, congratulations to worthy winners Dundalk who nullified the Bangor attack, then went on to produce some stunning plays which racked up no less than 8 tries, each by a different player. For Bangor’s part, they were unable to respond to the intensity of Dundalk’s game, and lacked the cutting edge which their opponents used to great effect.

The day started full of promise, as the strong support from North Down made their way to Chambers Park in Portadown, knowing Bangor would be fielding their best team. Once again, the pundits had Bangor as the underdogs – just as they had done so in the previous three rounds! In confounding the experts earlier, Bangor produced some awesome performances against top quality opposition to get to the final. Dundalk had produced some convincing wins in the early rounds of the competition, but had struggled to get past CIYMS in the semi-final, just managing to squeeze ahead at the second time of asking. However, with a number of key players returning to the side in time for this game, they were now back at full strength and would be a formidable force to contend with.

Having won the toss, captain Jamie Clegg elected to play into the stiff wind in the first half. For the first 5 minutes, Bangor doggedly retained possession and tried to play their way into Dundalk’s half through a series of determined forward moves. However, little ground was made and, when possession was finally lost, the Dundalk back line produced a burst that simply cut through the Bangor defence resulting in an easy touch down under Bangor’s posts for a 7-0 lead.

Bangor stuck to their plan and slowly, but patiently, got their attack moving forward, eventually winning a penalty to the left of Dundalk’s posts, but Mark Widdowson’s kick into the wind drifted just wide of the mark.

The contrast in play between the two teams was becoming clear, with Bangor trying to keep the ball close while Dundalk were throwing it wide. The latter strategy was proving to be the more effective as, with 20 minutes gone, a quick back line move with players looping around resulted in an overlap on the right wing which gave a clear run in to again, score under the posts. A further 9 minutes later, they did it again and, although the Bangor defence had sensed the danger and moved across to cover it, their tackling let them down allowing Dundalk to get over in the right hand corner, taking their lead to 19-0.

By now, Bangor were trying to hang on until half time when they could regroup and come out with the wind at their backs. Dundalk, on the other hand were anxious to press home their advantage and give them a more comfortable lead. To Bangor’s credit, although camped on their own line for lengthy spells, they dug in and managed to hold on until the referee’s half time whistle.

As the teams reappeared from the dressing rooms, it was obvious Bangor were ringing the changes, particularly in the backs. With the wind advantage having lessened considerably, Bangor got the second half underway. It was now Dundalk’s turn to adopt the slow, steady approach, just as Bangor had done earlier. However, their more confident off-loading and support play was, once again, taking play deep into Bangor’s territory. Frustration at not being able to gain possession and take play out of their danger area eventually resulted in a yellow card for Clegg after a succession of penalties. Dundalk kicked the penalty to touch, won their lineout and drove for the line. Although initially held up by the Bangor defence, Dundalk’s repeated drives were eventually rewarded with another converted score, extending their lead to 26-0.

From the touchline, the Bangor faithful had felt that if their players had managed to score first in the second half, they may have been able to mount a fight-back and close the gap to their opponents. As it was, this Dundalk score simply bolstered their confidence and pushed Bangor deeper into trouble. With Bangor still a man down, Dundalk added to the score with a penalty and then another score in the corner. Everything was now working for the Leinster men, as even the difficult touchline conversion into the biting wind successfully split the posts, bringing the score to 36-0.

As the game entered the final quarter, and with Dundalk all but holding the cup, Bangor were now on the ropes. By contrast, the Dundalk players were in almost total control, and were not going to slow down now. In a 10 minute spell, they ran in a further 3 tries, making the scoreline 55-0. By now, any sense of dejection the Bangor supporters may have been feeling was now moved to feelings of sympathy for their players. However, pride was at stake and once again Bangor rallied as the game entered its final minutes. At last, the forwards got within striking distance of the Dundalk line and, although their repeated attacks were repelled, they finally managed to do what their opponents had done so effectively, and quickly passed the ball wide to Davy Charles. Even though they were 55 points ahead, the Dundalk defence made Charles work hard to drive through the tackles and score Bangor’s consolation try, bringing the final score to 55-5.

From Bangor’s point of view, the final score doesn’t tell the whole story of this competition. While the final may have resulted in a sad anti-climax for Bangor, the remarkable journey to get there will be remembered for some time. On the day, Dundalk were by far the better side, and Bangor would have to concede that their game was not up to the usual standard. However, there is no doubt the experience of competing at this level is something to relish and the goal now will be to secure a top four place in the league and try again next year.

Everybody at the club has nothing but the highest respect and praise for what has been achieved this year by not just the 1sts, but all the senior teams, and one poor result isn’t going to change that – the welcome at Upritchard Park for the returning players is testament to that. With that in mind, the players now need to put this disappointment behind them and provide the best possible response against a struggling Portadown side at home in the league next Saturday.

Bangor side: J Leary, A Jackson, P Whyte, F Black, G Irvine, R Latimer, J Clegg, C Stewart, R Armstrong, K Rosson, D Charles, M Aspley, M Weir, M Widdowson, C Morgan

Subs: S Irvine, O McIlmurray, D Kelly, M Rodgers, C Harper, D Fusco, M Thompson

Bangor scores: D Charles (1T)

Dundalk Storm To Title Dundalk 55 v Bangor 5 from KnockOn.ie

Dundalk Scorers: Christopher Scully, Owen McNally, Jonathan Williams, John Smyth, Ultan Murphy, Tiernan Gonnelly, James McConnon and Stephen Murphy 1 try each. Ultan Murphy 6 cons, 1 pen.

Bangor Scorers: David Charles 1 try.

In front of a big crowd at Chambers Park on Saturday afternoon Dundalk delivered a stunning and ruthless display to see off the challenge of Bangor and capture the All Ireland Junior Cup title for the very first time.

Three first half tries had them firmly in control at 19-0 ahead having played with the elements at the Portadown venue during the first half and while the wind dropped somewhat after half time the Dundalk intensity most certainly didn’t as they cut loose scoring five more tries.

Dundalk returned to a heroes welcome at their Mill Road clubhouse on Saturday night after a display of pure brilliance throughout the afternoon.

Precision, pace and skill from the Louth men from start to finish left Bangor playing second fiddle for long periods.

Dundalk overwhelm Bangor in All Ireland Final

by Roger Corbett

Bangor’s amazing run in the All Ireland Junior Cup came to an abrupt end when they were comprehensively beaten by Dundalk, eventually losing by 55-5.

Where do you start when trying to relate and absorb the events of Saturday’s final at Chambers Park? Firstly, congratulations to worthy winners Dundalk who nullified the Bangor attack, then went on to produce some stunning plays which racked up no less than 8 tries, each by a different player. For Bangor’s part, they were unable to respond to the intensity of Dundalk’s game, and lacked the cutting edge which their opponents used to great effect.

The day started full of promise, as the strong support from North Down made their way to Chambers Park in Portadown, knowing Bangor would be fielding their best team. Once again, the pundits had Bangor as the underdogs – just as they had done so in the previous three rounds! In confounding the experts earlier, Bangor produced some awesome performances against top quality opposition to get to the final. Dundalk had produced some convincing wins in the early rounds of the competition, but had struggled to get past CIYMS in the semi-final, just managing to squeeze ahead at the second time of asking. However, with a number of key players returning to the side in time for this game, they were now back at full strength and would be a formidable force to contend with.

Having won the toss, captain Jamie Clegg elected to play into the stiff wind in the first half. For the first 5 minutes, Bangor doggedly retained possession and tried to play their way into Dundalk’s half through a series of determined forward moves. However, little ground was made and, when possession was finally lost, the Dundalk back line produced a burst that simply cut through the Bangor defence resulting in an easy touch down under Bangor’s posts for a 7-0 lead.

Bangor stuck to their plan and slowly, but patiently, got their attack moving forward, eventually winning a penalty to the left of Dundalk’s posts, but Mark Widdowson’s kick into the wind drifted just wide of the mark.

The contrast in play between the two teams was becoming clear, with Bangor trying to keep the ball close while Dundalk were throwing it wide. The latter strategy was proving to be the more effective as, with 20 minutes gone, a quick back line move with players looping around resulted in an overlap on the right wing which gave a clear run in to again, score under the posts. A further 9 minutes later, they did it again and, although the Bangor defence had sensed the danger and moved across to cover it, their tackling let them down allowing Dundalk to get over in the right hand corner, taking their lead to 19-0.

By now, Bangor were trying to hang on until half time when they could regroup and come out with the wind at their backs. Dundalk, on the other hand were anxious to press home their advantage and give them a more comfortable lead. To Bangor’s credit, although camped on their own line for lengthy spells, they dug in and managed to hold on until the referee’s half time whistle.

As the teams reappeared from the dressing rooms, it was obvious Bangor were ringing the changes, particularly in the backs. With the wind advantage having lessened considerably, Bangor got the second half underway. It was now Dundalk’s turn to adopt the slow, steady approach, just as Bangor had done earlier. However, their more confident off-loading and support play was, once again, taking play deep into Bangor’s territory. Frustration at not being able to gain possession and take play out of their danger area eventually resulted in a yellow card for Clegg after a succession of penalties. Dundalk kicked the penalty to touch, won their lineout and drove for the line. Although initially held up by the Bangor defence, Dundalk’s repeated drives were eventually rewarded with another converted score, extending their lead to 26-0.

From the touchline, the Bangor faithful had felt that if their players had managed to score first in the second half, they may have been able to mount a fight-back and close the gap to their opponents. As it was, this Dundalk score simply bolstered their confidence and pushed Bangor deeper into trouble. With Bangor still a man down, Dundalk added to the score with a penalty and then another score in the corner. Everything was now working for the Leinster men, as even the difficult touchline conversion into the biting wind successfully split the posts, bringing the score to 36-0.

As the game entered the final quarter, and with Dundalk all but holding the cup, Bangor were now on the ropes. By contrast, the Dundalk players were in almost total control, and were not going to slow down now. In a 10 minute spell, they ran in a further 3 tries, making the scoreline 55-0. By now, any sense of dejection the Bangor supporters may have been feeling was now moved to feelings of sympathy for their players. However, pride was at stake and once again Bangor rallied as the game entered its final minutes. At last, the forwards got within striking distance of the Dundalk line and, although their repeated attacks were repelled, they finally managed to do what their opponents had done so effectively, and quickly passed the ball wide to Davy Charles. Even though they were 55 points ahead, the Dundalk defence made Charles work hard to drive through the tackles and score Bangor’s consolation try, bringing the final score to 55-5.

From Bangor’s point of view, the final score doesn’t tell the whole story of this competition. While the final may have resulted in a sad anti-climax for Bangor, the remarkable journey to get there will be remembered for some time. On the day, Dundalk were by far the better side, and Bangor would have to concede that their game was not up to the usual standard. However, there is no doubt the experience of competing at this level is something to relish and the goal now will be to secure a top four place in the league and try again next year.

Everybody at the club has nothing but the highest respect and praise for what has been achieved this year by not just the 1sts, but all the senior teams, and one poor result isn’t going to change that – the welcome at Upritchard Park for the returning players is testament to that. With that in mind, the players now need to put this disappointment behind them and provide the best possible response against a struggling Portadown side at home in the league next Saturday.

Bangor side: J Leary, A Jackson, P Whyte, F Black, G Irvine, R Latimer, J Clegg, C Stewart, R Armstrong, K Rosson, D Charles, M Aspley, M Weir, M Widdowson, C Morgan

Subs: S Irvine, O McIlmurray, D Kelly, M Rodgers, C Harper, D Fusco, M Thompson

Bangor scores: D Charles (1T)

Dundalk Storm To Title Dundalk 55 v Bangor 5 from KnockOn.ie

Dundalk Scorers: Christopher Scully, Owen McNally, Jonathan Williams, John Smyth, Ultan Murphy, Tiernan Gonnelly, James McConnon and Stephen Murphy 1 try each. Ultan Murphy 6 cons, 1 pen.

Bangor Scorers: David Charles 1 try.

In front of a big crowd at Chambers Park on Saturday afternoon Dundalk delivered a stunning and ruthless display to see off the challenge of Bangor and capture the All Ireland Junior Cup title for the very first time.

Three first half tries had them firmly in control at 19-0 ahead having played with the elements at the Portadown venue during the first half and while the wind dropped somewhat after half time the Dundalk intensity most certainly didn’t as they cut loose scoring five more tries.

Dundalk returned to a heroes welcome at their Mill Road clubhouse on Saturday night after a display of pure brilliance throughout the afternoon.

Precision, pace and skill from the Louth men from start to finish left Bangor playing second fiddle for long periods.

This image possibly relates to the United States Navy visit to Sydney on 23 July 1925. This image was possibly taken on Hickson Road in Walsh Bay and the banner on the car reads: 'Welcome...Australia's...Commonwealth Band...'

 

The fleet departed for New Zealand on 6 August. The fleet included USS CALIFORNIA (V), USS COLORADO (III), USS TENNESSEE (III), USS MARYLAND (III), USS WEST VIRGINIA (II), USS NEW MEXICO (I), USS MISSISSIPPI (III) and USS IDAHO (IV).

 

This photo is part of the Australian National Maritime Museum’s Samuel J. Hood Studio collection. Sam Hood (1872-1953) was a Sydney photographer with a passion for ships. His 60-year career spanned the romantic age of sail and two world wars. The photos in the collection were taken mainly in Sydney and Newcastle during the first half of the 20th century.

 

The ANMM undertakes research and accepts public comments that enhance the information we hold about images in our collection. This record has been updated accordingly.

 

Photographer: Samuel J. Hood Studio Collection

 

Object no. 00034728

The performance relates the shorter version of the epic Ramayana Saga with dancers playing as Rama, Shinta (Sita), Lakshmana, Rahwana (Ravana), Hanoman (Hanuman), Sugriwa (Sugriva), and other characters. The storyline starts when Prince Rama wanders into the woods with his wife Shinta and brother Lakshmana. There, the giant Rahwana kidnaps Shinta and holds her in his palace. Rama then seeks help and sends Lakhsmana to find his friend Sugriwa, the King of the Monkey Kingdom. Sugriwa sends his commander the white monkey, by the name of Hanoman, to check on Shinta in Rahwana’s Palace.

 

A dramatic scene is portrayed when Hanoman is captured by Rahwana’s troops and put inside a circle of fire to burn him alive. Instead of burning to crisp, the white monkey warrior remains unharmed and breaks out only to burn Rahwana’s palace instead. Thus, began the battle between the two forces.

 

At first, Rahwana and his troops manage to overrun Rama. However, Sugriwa and Hanoman then come to Rama’s aid along with the rest of the monkey troops, defeat the evil king once and for all

 

Taken @Bali, Indonesia

Correspondence with the Chief Mechanical Engineer, Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, and various military establishments, relating mainly to the supply of lead piping and flanges. Dated 3rd February 1941

 

Cheshire Archives and Local Studies ZCR 245/19

Blog relating to this story .... peterjemmett.blogspot.com/2019/10/heart-attack-to-10k-par...

From my Cafe Latte collection. Fake TTV tintype - thanks to Nesster for the texture.

Kinetic: Relating to, caused by, or producing motion.

 

These are called “Kinetic” photographs because there is motion, energy, and movement involved, specifically my and the camera’s movements.

 

Most of these are shot outdoors where I have the room to literally spin and throw my little camera several feet up into the air, with some throws going as high as 15 feet or more!

 

None of these are Photoshopped, layered, or a composite photo...what you see occurs in one shot, one take.

 

Aren’t I afraid that I will drop and break my camera? For regular followers of my photostream and this series you will know that I have already done so. This little camera has been dropped many times, and broken once when dropped on concrete outside. It still functions...not so well for regular photographs, but superbly for more kinetic work.

 

Albeit supremely risky this is one of my favorite ways to produce abstract photographs.

 

If you'd like to see more please check out my set, "Vertigo:"

 

www.flickr.com/photos/motorpsiclist/sets/72157630591282642/

 

.

  

To read more about Kinetic Photography click the Wikipedia link below:

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_photography

 

.

  

My photographs and videos and any derivative works are my private property and are copyright © by me, John Russell (aka “Zoom Lens”) and ALL my rights, including my exclusive rights, are reserved. ANY use without my permission in writing is forbidden by law.

 

This image relates to the departure of the Kangaroos rugby team onboard AWATEA, July 1937. The photo was taken at Sydney Cricket Ground before the team left for the Australia Rugby League Tour 1937-1938. Pictured from left to right, back row: I. Ward, B. Williams, E.Collins, J.Gibb, C. Hazleton, A. Norval, D. Mclean, P. Farrall. Second row: P. Griffiths, R. Mckinnon, G. Maclennan, l. Heidke, S. Pearce, F. Curran, H. Robison, H. Pierce, R. Stehr. Third row: l. Dawson, G. Whittle, J. Reardon, R. Savage ( joint manager), W. Prigg (captain), H. Sunderland (joint manager), E. Lewis, P. Nolan, J. Beaton. Infront: P. Gilbert, R. Thompson, B. Norman, P. Williams.

 

The Australian National Maritime Museum undertakes research and accepts public comments that enhance the information we hold about images in our collection. If you can identify a person, vessel or landmark, write the details in the Comments box below.

 

Thank you for helping caption this important historical image.

 

Photographer: Samuel J Hood

 

Object number 00022598

 

Dundalk overwhelm Bangor in All Ireland Final

by Roger Corbett

Bangor’s amazing run in the All Ireland Junior Cup came to an abrupt end when they were comprehensively beaten by Dundalk, eventually losing by 55-5.

Where do you start when trying to relate and absorb the events of Saturday’s final at Chambers Park? Firstly, congratulations to worthy winners Dundalk who nullified the Bangor attack, then went on to produce some stunning plays which racked up no less than 8 tries, each by a different player. For Bangor’s part, they were unable to respond to the intensity of Dundalk’s game, and lacked the cutting edge which their opponents used to great effect.

The day started full of promise, as the strong support from North Down made their way to Chambers Park in Portadown, knowing Bangor would be fielding their best team. Once again, the pundits had Bangor as the underdogs – just as they had done so in the previous three rounds! In confounding the experts earlier, Bangor produced some awesome performances against top quality opposition to get to the final. Dundalk had produced some convincing wins in the early rounds of the competition, but had struggled to get past CIYMS in the semi-final, just managing to squeeze ahead at the second time of asking. However, with a number of key players returning to the side in time for this game, they were now back at full strength and would be a formidable force to contend with.

Having won the toss, captain Jamie Clegg elected to play into the stiff wind in the first half. For the first 5 minutes, Bangor doggedly retained possession and tried to play their way into Dundalk’s half through a series of determined forward moves. However, little ground was made and, when possession was finally lost, the Dundalk back line produced a burst that simply cut through the Bangor defence resulting in an easy touch down under Bangor’s posts for a 7-0 lead.

Bangor stuck to their plan and slowly, but patiently, got their attack moving forward, eventually winning a penalty to the left of Dundalk’s posts, but Mark Widdowson’s kick into the wind drifted just wide of the mark.

The contrast in play between the two teams was becoming clear, with Bangor trying to keep the ball close while Dundalk were throwing it wide. The latter strategy was proving to be the more effective as, with 20 minutes gone, a quick back line move with players looping around resulted in an overlap on the right wing which gave a clear run in to again, score under the posts. A further 9 minutes later, they did it again and, although the Bangor defence had sensed the danger and moved across to cover it, their tackling let them down allowing Dundalk to get over in the right hand corner, taking their lead to 19-0.

By now, Bangor were trying to hang on until half time when they could regroup and come out with the wind at their backs. Dundalk, on the other hand were anxious to press home their advantage and give them a more comfortable lead. To Bangor’s credit, although camped on their own line for lengthy spells, they dug in and managed to hold on until the referee’s half time whistle.

As the teams reappeared from the dressing rooms, it was obvious Bangor were ringing the changes, particularly in the backs. With the wind advantage having lessened considerably, Bangor got the second half underway. It was now Dundalk’s turn to adopt the slow, steady approach, just as Bangor had done earlier. However, their more confident off-loading and support play was, once again, taking play deep into Bangor’s territory. Frustration at not being able to gain possession and take play out of their danger area eventually resulted in a yellow card for Clegg after a succession of penalties. Dundalk kicked the penalty to touch, won their lineout and drove for the line. Although initially held up by the Bangor defence, Dundalk’s repeated drives were eventually rewarded with another converted score, extending their lead to 26-0.

From the touchline, the Bangor faithful had felt that if their players had managed to score first in the second half, they may have been able to mount a fight-back and close the gap to their opponents. As it was, this Dundalk score simply bolstered their confidence and pushed Bangor deeper into trouble. With Bangor still a man down, Dundalk added to the score with a penalty and then another score in the corner. Everything was now working for the Leinster men, as even the difficult touchline conversion into the biting wind successfully split the posts, bringing the score to 36-0.

As the game entered the final quarter, and with Dundalk all but holding the cup, Bangor were now on the ropes. By contrast, the Dundalk players were in almost total control, and were not going to slow down now. In a 10 minute spell, they ran in a further 3 tries, making the scoreline 55-0. By now, any sense of dejection the Bangor supporters may have been feeling was now moved to feelings of sympathy for their players. However, pride was at stake and once again Bangor rallied as the game entered its final minutes. At last, the forwards got within striking distance of the Dundalk line and, although their repeated attacks were repelled, they finally managed to do what their opponents had done so effectively, and quickly passed the ball wide to Davy Charles. Even though they were 55 points ahead, the Dundalk defence made Charles work hard to drive through the tackles and score Bangor’s consolation try, bringing the final score to 55-5.

From Bangor’s point of view, the final score doesn’t tell the whole story of this competition. While the final may have resulted in a sad anti-climax for Bangor, the remarkable journey to get there will be remembered for some time. On the day, Dundalk were by far the better side, and Bangor would have to concede that their game was not up to the usual standard. However, there is no doubt the experience of competing at this level is something to relish and the goal now will be to secure a top four place in the league and try again next year.

Everybody at the club has nothing but the highest respect and praise for what has been achieved this year by not just the 1sts, but all the senior teams, and one poor result isn’t going to change that – the welcome at Upritchard Park for the returning players is testament to that. With that in mind, the players now need to put this disappointment behind them and provide the best possible response against a struggling Portadown side at home in the league next Saturday.

Bangor side: J Leary, A Jackson, P Whyte, F Black, G Irvine, R Latimer, J Clegg, C Stewart, R Armstrong, K Rosson, D Charles, M Aspley, M Weir, M Widdowson, C Morgan

Subs: S Irvine, O McIlmurray, D Kelly, M Rodgers, C Harper, D Fusco, M Thompson

Bangor scores: D Charles (1T)

Dundalk Storm To Title Dundalk 55 v Bangor 5 from KnockOn.ie

Dundalk Scorers: Christopher Scully, Owen McNally, Jonathan Williams, John Smyth, Ultan Murphy, Tiernan Gonnelly, James McConnon and Stephen Murphy 1 try each. Ultan Murphy 6 cons, 1 pen.

Bangor Scorers: David Charles 1 try.

In front of a big crowd at Chambers Park on Saturday afternoon Dundalk delivered a stunning and ruthless display to see off the challenge of Bangor and capture the All Ireland Junior Cup title for the very first time.

Three first half tries had them firmly in control at 19-0 ahead having played with the elements at the Portadown venue during the first half and while the wind dropped somewhat after half time the Dundalk intensity most certainly didn’t as they cut loose scoring five more tries.

Dundalk returned to a heroes welcome at their Mill Road clubhouse on Saturday night after a display of pure brilliance throughout the afternoon.

Precision, pace and skill from the Louth men from start to finish left Bangor playing second fiddle for long periods.

This home is across the road and was owned by a hard-working farming family. He had a special love for horses and she for her vegetable garden. They passed away a few years ago. The house belongs to the family now.

 

ANSH

Something relating to my neighbor

"relating to the motion of material bodies and the forces and energy associated therewith"

 

A creative outing with my photo club - Inland Empire Photo Club - where we played with light and motion and long exposures to create kinetic art. It was a wonderful, creative evening.

The word Endurance as an Adjective is defined as:

denoting or relating to a race or other sporting event that takes place over a long distance or otherwise demands great physical stamina.

 

However, I feel the best way to describe how this season has gone is to use the Noun definition of the word: the fact or power of enduring an unpleasant or difficult process or situation without giving way

 

The 3rd and final race of the 2016 season was held at the postponed Bang Saen Festival of Speed. The championship standings showed the #36 Toyota with such a commanding lead from the first two races that only a small miracle would see TR-Motorsport crowned as champions. However unlikely it may be the scenario was Thomas and the DC5 to finish in first while the Toyota failed to cross the line at all, being the slowest car on the grid - this was tall order!

 

As with all the endurance races this season the team was beset by mechanical issues.During the extended practice period, gearbox and clutch problems arose resulting in a complete change out of the gearbox. Luckily this rectified the problems and the team were ready for qualifying. Tony Percy, longtime friend of the team and co-driver took the reins of the Honda Integra DC5, with the previous issues still fresh in his mind Tony gently eased the car through qualifying and into a respectable 9th place, which is was an outstanding achievement considering that there were 61 other cars on the track at the same time all vying for a clean lap.

 

As with all endurance races the 6 hours is split between drivers, for the first stint, Tony pushed the Integra into 7th before the first changeover. The safety car period eventually became a red flagged race and all cars returned to the pits resulting in the team losing any advantage they had gained. Seven cars had been involved in the on-track pileup and although this meant fewer cars in the race and more space on track it took several hours to remove the cars and fix the damaged barriers.

 

At the restart, Thomas powered his way into 2nd place overall and was somehow setting faster times than the leading Toyota. He consolidated his position up until the next driver change however the gremlins were back playing with the clutch again causing the car to struggle to change gear. Eventually, all the gears except 4th had failed with Tony limping around the circuit. The decision was then made to pit early and see if the issue could be solved. No fix could be applied so it was 4th gear all the way to the chequered flag for the final 1 hour 24 minutes. Ironically the leading Toyota crashed several times and finished dead last but this was still enough to win the championship. TR-Motorsport finished 4th in class,later promoted to 3rd as another team had received a 30 lap penalty for a jump start behind the safety car.

 

TR-Motorsports final position in the Enduring Endurance Championship was 3rd in class, with just a little bit more luck who knows what might have been……

 

Super Production Class

Race One

An eventful weekend of racing greeted TR-Motorsport at the final rounds of the Thailand Super Series held at the picturesque Bang Saen Beach Street Circuit. The final event had been postponed from November ’16 to February ’17 due to the passing of the late King. With the postponement came a long gap giving us the perfect opportunity to concentrate on some R & D in the hope of closing the gap to Championship Victor Hideharu Kuroki. After some minor tweaks to the car, a major redesign of the front Air Intake was undertaken which provided very encouraging results after completing several simulations on the Dyno equipment.

 

Simulations are all well and good, however, it’s on the track where it counts and Thomas fully obliged with the fastest lap around the circuit in official practice. When qualifying began both Thomas and Hideharu were setting fastest lap after fastest lap, nip and tuck all the way. Eventually, Thomas managed to claim a fantastic Pole Position by just one-tenth of a second from Hideharu, being Pole on a tight and twisty circuit is always vital so the race to the first corner could possibly decide the race.

 

Due to our first gear ratio being longer and the race to the first corner uphill we knew wewould be at a disadvantage. Thomas got off the line perfectly and stormed up the hill defending his line to the left to try and outwit Hideharu who was virtually alongside the ‘Blue Blur’, paint was traded several times before Hideharu backed out and slotted in behind to mount another challenge. The final corner of lap 1 caused a gasp from the TR-Motorsport team and fans as Hideharu once again tried a move, this time on the inside but again showed professionalism by backing off at the right time.

 

By the middle of lap 2 Thomas had pulled out a small lead and held on for the remainder of the race even breaking the lap record on several occasions, Hideharu pushed Thomas all the way to the chequered flag and saw his 100% record gone as Thomas, 10 years after his first win at Bang Saen came home with the spoils and a much needed 20 points, cementing his second place position in the championship.

 

Race 2

After the elation of the previous victory had faded, the team of mechanics led by Sven Thummel got to work on the car to check everything over and prepare for Race 2. The team soon spotted an issue with the wishbones as the bushings were damaged and as a precautionary measure these were duly replaced. As with all previous rounds, the top 5 finishers from Race 1 started in reverse order meaning Thomas would start from 5th. As the cars assembled on the grid all looked good and a top 3 position looked more than possible.

 

As the car left for the warm lap Thomas felt an issue with the steering although not terminal, Thomas made the wisest choice to visit the pits to try and ascertain what the issue was. The team of mechanics could not find anything obvious so the car headed back out on track. People reading this familiar with the rules and regulations of motorsport, will of course know that our little visit to the pits would mean starting at the back of the grid, this was only compounded by the fact that due to a miscommunication with the stewards we forced to wait at the pit lane exit some 600 meters away from the back of the grid!

 

Regular readers will know that we have had similar issues before and still come out on top. However, today was not going to be one of those days! The first 3 laps of the race went perfectly with Thomas making his way through the field from a lowly 19th to a respectable 10th. The racing gods were smiling on us as a safety car deployment bunched the whole pack back up and with 9 laps to go top 3 was still an outside possibility. In came the safety car down went the throttle and that's where the problems began, a massive loss of power resulted in cars streaming past a limping Thomas. On the pit to car radio turning the electrics on and off to reset the car,was suggested - it worked! But by now Thomas was once again at the back of the grid. For the remaining laps, a valiant Thomas fought back to a very respectful 8th place and again set the fastest lap and broke the track record for the Super Production Class.

 

After the race, the car was checked over by the official Thailand Super Series scrutineers and as with all races we have competed in this year,they found nothing to report. Although dejected the team were still in good spirits after another great week of motorsport at Bang Saen Beach and look forward to returning in July to compete in the GTC Supercar Class with the new Porsche 911 (997).

 

In next month’s Pattaya Trader we will have a big update for your regarding the upcoming season, in the meantime you can follow us through our website Tr-Motorosport.com, our Facebook page Facebook.com/TRMotorsportThailand and our Instagram account tmotorsport_thailand

A repository of images relate to Banana (Musa spp) shared by members of MusaNet. The album depicts images from different African, Asian and countries from the Americas where collaborative work on Banana research is done.

 

©CIAT

Please credit accordingly and leave a comment when you use a CIAT photo.

For more info: alliance-comms@cgiar.org

Kartikeya (/ˌkɑrtɪˈkeɪjə/), also known as Skanda, Murugan and Subramaniyan, is the Hindu god of war. He is the commander-in-chief of the army of the devas (gods) and the son of Shiva and Parvati.

 

Murugan is often referred to as "Tamil Kadavul" (meaning "God of Tamils") and is worshiped primarily in areas with Tamil influences, especially South India, Sri Lanka, Mauritius, Malaysia, Singapore and Reunion Island. His six most important shrines in India are the Arupadaiveedu temples, located in Tamil Nadu. In Sri Lanka, Hindus as well as Buddhists revere the sacred historical Nallur Kandaswamy temple in Jaffna and Katirkāmam Temple situated deep south.[1] Hindus in Malaysia also pray to Lord Murugan at the Batu Caves and various temples where Thaipusam is celebrated with grandeur.

 

In Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, Kartikeya is known as Subrahmanya with a temple at Kukke Subramanya known for Sarpa shanti rites dedicated to Him and another famous temple at Ghati Subramanya also in Karnataka. In Bengal and Odisha, he is popularly known as Kartikeya (meaning 'son of Krittika').

Other names[edit]

Like most Hindu deities, Subrahmanya is known by many other names, including Senthil, Vēlaṇ, Kumāran (meaning 'prince or child or young one'), Swaminatha (meaning 'smart' or 'clever'), Saravaṇa, Arumugam or Shanmuga (meaning 'one with six faces'), Dandapani (meaning God with a Club), Guhan or Guruguha (meaning 'cave-dweller'), Subrahmanya, Kartikeya and Skanda (meaning 'that which is spilled or oozed).[3][4] He was also known as Mahasena and the Kadamba Dynasty kings worshiped him by this name.[5]

Vedas[edit]

The Atharva Veda describes Kumaran as 'Agnibhuh' because he is form of 'Agni' (Fire God) & Agni hold in his hand when kumaran born. The Satapatha Brahmana refers to him as the son of Rudra and the six faces of Rudra. The Taittiriya Aranyaka contains the Gayatri mantra for Shanmukha. The Chandogya Upanishad refers to Skanda as the "way that leads to wisdom". The Baudhayana Dharmasutra mentions Skanda as 'Mahasena' and 'Subrahmanya.' The Aranya Parva canto of the Mahabharata relates the legend of Kartikeya Skanda in considerable detail. The Skanda Purana is devoted to the narrative of Kartikeya.[6] The Upanishads also constantly make a reference to a Supreme Being called Guha, the indweller.

The first elaborate account of Kartikeya's origin occurs in the Mahabharata. In a complicated story, he is said to have been born from Agni and Svaha, after the latter impersonated the six of the seven wives of the Saptarishi (Seven Sages). The actual wives then become the Pleiades. Kartikeya is said to have been born to destroy the Asura Mahisha.[7] (In later mythology, Mahisha became the adversary of Durga.) Indra attacks Kartikeya as he sees the latter as a threat, until Shiva intervenes and makes Kartikeya the commander-in-chief of the army of the Devas. He is also married to Devasena, Indra's daughter. The origin of this marriage lies probably in the punning of 'Deva-sena-pati'. It can mean either lord of Devasena or Lord of the army (sena) of Devas. But according to Shrii Shrii Anandamurti, in his master work on Shiva[8] and other works, Kartikeya was married to Devasenā and that is on the ground of his name as Devasena's husband, Devasenāpati, misinterpreted as Deva-senāpati (Deva's general) that he was granted the title general and made the Deva's army general.[9]

Tolkappiyam, possibly the most ancient of the Tamil literature mentions him as "Seyon", the three other gods referred in Tolkappiyam are "Maayon", "Indhiran" and "Kotravai(see:Durga). Extant Sangam works, dated between the 3rd century BCE and 5th century CE glorified Murugan, "the red god seated on the blue peacock, who is ever young and resplendent," as "the favoured god of the Tamils."[10] The Sangam poetry divided space and Tamil land into five allegorical areas (tinai) and according to the Tirumurugarruppatai ( c. 400–450 AD) attributed to the great Sangam poet Nakkiirar, Murugan was the presiding deity the Kurinci region (hilly area). (Tirumurugaruppatai is a deeply devotional poem included in the ten idylls (Pattupattu) of the age of the third Sangam). The other Sangam era works in Tamil that refer to Murugan in detail include the Paripaatal, the Akananuru and the Purananuru. One poem in the Paripaatal describes the veneration of Murugan thus:

 

"We implore thee not for boons of enjoyment or wealth,

But for thy grace beatific, love and virtuous deeds."

 

According to the Tamil devotional work, Thiruppugazh, "Murugan never hesitates to come to the aid of a devotee when called upon in piety or distress". In another work, Thirumurukkarrupatai, he is described as a god of eternal youth;

 

His face shines a myriad rays light and removes the darkness from this world.[11]

The references to Murugan can be traced back to the first millennium BCE. There are references to Murugan in Kautilya's Arthashastra, in the works of Patanjali, in Kalidasa's epic poem the Kumarasambhavam. The Kushanas, who governed from what is today Peshawar, and the Yaudheyas, a republican clan in the Punjab, struck coins bearing the image of Skanda. The deity was venerated also by the Ikshvakus, an Andhra dynasty, and the Guptas.[6] The worship of Kumāra was one of the six principal sects of Hinduism at the time of Adi Shankara. The Shanmata system propagated by him included this sect. In many Shiva and Devi temples of Tamil Nadu, Murugan is installed on the left of the main deity. The story of His birth goesas follows:

 

Sati immolated herself in a pyre as her father King Daksha had insulted Shiva, her Lord. She was reborn as Parvathi or Uma, daughter of the King of Himalayas, Himavan. She then married her Lord Shiva. The Devas were under onslaught from the Asuras whose leader was Soorapadman. He had been granted boons that only Lord Shiva or his seed could kill him. Fearless he vanquished the Devas and made them his slaves. The Devas ran to Vishnu for help who told them that it was merely their fault for attending Daksha's yagna, without the presence of Lord Shiva. After this, they ran to Shiva for help. Shiva decided to take action against Soorapadman's increasing conceit. He frowned and his third eye- the eye of knowledge- started releasing sparks. These were six sparks in total. Agni had the responsibility to take them to Saravana Lake. As he was carrying them, the sparks were growing hotter and hotter that even the Lord of Fire could not withstand the heat. Soon after Murugan was born on a lotus in the Saravana Lake with six faces, giving him the name Arumukan. Lord Shiva and Parvati visited and tears of joy started flowing as they witnessed the most handsome child. Shiva and Parvathi gave the responsibility of taking care of Muruga to the six Krittika sisters. Muruga grew up to be a handsome, intelligent, powerful, clever youth. All the Devas applauded at their saviour, who had finally come to release them from their woes. Murugan became the supreme general of the demi-gods, then escorted the devas and led the army of the devas to victory against the asuras.

Though slightly varying versions occur in the Puranas, they broadly follow the same pattern. By this period, the identification of Shiva/Rudra with Agni, that can be traced back to the Vedas and Brahmanas, had clearly made Kartikeya the son of Shiva.[citation needed]

 

The Skanda Purana narrates that Shiva first wed Dakshayani (also named Sati), the first incarnation of Adi Shakthi the granddaughter of Brahma, and the daughter of Daksha. Daksha was a Vishnu devotee and never liked Shiva, who symbolized destruction of evil, detachment, and who lives a simple life . Daksha publicly insults Shiva in a Yagna ceremony, and Dakshayani immolates herself. The Yagna is destroyed by Shiva's avatar Virabhadra. Virabhadra broke the sacrificial vessels, polluted the offerings, insulted the priests and finally cut off Daksha's head, trampled on Indra, broke the staff of Yama, scattered the gods on every side; then he returned to Kailash.[12] Taraka believed that, because Shiva is an ascetic and his earlier marriage was conducted with great difficulty, his remarriage was out of the question, hence his boon of being killed by Shiva's son alone would give him invincibility.

 

The Devas manage to get Shiva married to Parvati (who was Dakshayani, reborn), by making Manmatha (also known as Kama), the God of love awaken him from his penance, but Manmatha incurred the Lord's wrath indicated by the opening his third eye – "Netri Kann", and being destroyed and resurrected. Shiva hands over his effulgence of the third eye used to destroy Manmatha to Agni, as he alone is capable of handling it until it becomes the desired offspring. But even Agni, tortured by its heat, hands it over to Ganga who in turn deposits it in a lake in a forest of reeds (sharavanam). Then Goddess Parvati, took the form of this water body as she alone is capable of taming the Tejas of Shiva, her consort. . The child is finally born in this forest (vana) with six faces: eesanam, sathpurusham, vamadevam, agoram, sathyojatham and adhomugam. He is first spotted and cared for by six women representing the Pleiades — Kritika in Sanskrit. He thus gets named Kartikeya. As a young lad, he destroys Tarakasur. He is also called Kumara (Tamil and Sanskrit for "youth")

Historically, God Kartikeya was immensely popular in the Indian subcontinent. One of the major Puranas, the Skanda Purana is dedicated to him. In the Bhagavad-Gita (Ch.10, Verse 24), Krishna, while explaining his omnipresence, names the most perfect being, mortal or divine, in each of several categories. While doing so, he says: "Among generals, I am Skanda, the lord of war."

 

Kartikeya's presence in the religious and cultural sphere can be seen at least from the Gupta age. Two of the Gupta kings, Kumaragupta and Skandagupta, were named after him. He is seen in the Gupta sculptures and in the temples of Ellora and Elephanta. As the commander of the divine armies, he became the patron of the ruling classes. His youth, beauty and bravery was much celebrated in Sanskrit works like the Kathasaritsagara. Kalidasa made the birth of Kumara the subject of a lyrical epic, the Kumaarasambhavam. In ancient India, Kartikeya was also regarded as the patron deity of thieves, as may be inferred from the Mrichchakatikam, a Sanskrit play by Shudraka, and in the Vetala-panchvimshati, a medieval collection of tales. This association is linked to the fact that Kartikeya had dug through the Krauncha mountain to kill Taraka and his brothers (in the Mrichchakatikam, Sarivilaka prays to him before tunnelling into the hero's house).

 

However, Kartikeya's popularity in North India receded from the Middle Ages onwards, and his worship is today virtually unknown except in parts of Haryana. There is a very famous temple dedicated to Him in the town of Pehowa in Haryana and this temple is very well known in the adjoining areas, especially because women are not allowed anywhere close to it. Women stay away from this temple in Pehowa town of Haryana because this shrine celebrates the Brahmachari form of Kartikeya. Reminders of former devotions to him include a temple at Achaleshwar, near Batala in Punjab, and another temple of Skanda atop the Parvati hill in Pune, Maharashtra. Another vestige of his former popularity can be seen in Bengal and Odisha, where he is worshipped during the Durga Puja festivities alongside Durga. Lord Subramanya is the major deity among the Hindus of northern Kerala. Lord Subramanya is worshipped with utmost devotion in districts of Dakshina Kannada and Udupi in the state of Karnataka. Rituals like nagaradhane are unique to this region.Temples[edit]

The main temples of Murugan are located in Tamil Nadu and other parts of south India. They include the Aru Padaiveedu (six abodes) — Thiruchendur, Swamimalai, Pazhamudircholai, Thirupparangunram, Palani (Pazhani), Thiruthani and other important shrines like Mayilam, Sikkal, Marudamalai, Kundrathur, Vadapalani, Kandakottam, Thiruporur, Vallakottai, Vayalur, Thirumalaikoil, Pachaimalai and Pavalamalai near Gobichettipalayam. Malai Mandir, a prominent and popular temple complex in Delhi, is one of the few dedicated to Murugan in all of North India apart from the Pehowa temple in Haryana.There are many temples dedicated to Lord Subramanya in Kerala. Amongst them are Atiyambur Sri Subramanya Temple in Kanhangad Kasaragod, Payyannur Subramanya Swamy temple in Payyanur, Panmana Subramanya Swamy temple in Panmana and the Subramanya temple in Haripad. There is a temple in Skandagiri, Secunderabad and one in Bikkavolu, East Godavari district in the state of Andhra Pradesh. In Karnataka there is the Kukke Subramanya Temple where Lord Murugan is worshiped as the Lord of the serpents. Aaslesha Bali, Sarpa Samskara with nagapathista samarpa are major prayers here. There is a temple called Malai Mandir in South Delhi. Malai means hill in Tamil. Mandir means temple in Hindi.

 

The key temples in Sri Lanka include the sylvan shrine in Kataragama / (Kadirgamam) or Kathirkamam in the deep south, the temple in Tirukovil in the east, the shrine in Embekke in the Kandyan region and the famed Nallur Kandaswamy temple in Jaffna. There are several temples dedicated to Lord Murugan in Malaysia, the most famous being the Batu Caves near Kuala Lumpur. There is a 42.7-m-high statue of Lord Murugan at the entrance to the Batu Caves, which is the largest Lord Murugan statue in the world. Sri Thandayuthapani Temple in Tank Road, Singapore is a major Hindu temple where each year the Thaipusam festival takes place with devotees of Lord Muruga carrying Kavadis seeking penance and blessings of the Lord.

 

In the United Kingdom, Highgate Hill Murugan temple is one of the oldest and most famous. In London, Sri Murugan Temple in Manor park is a well-known temple. In Midlands, Leicester Shri Siva Murugan Temple[20] is gaining popularity recently. Skanda Vale[21] in West Wales was founded by Guruji, a Tamil devotee of Subramaniam, and its primary deity is Lord Murugan. In Australia, Sydney Murugan temple in Parramatta (Mays Hill), Perth Bala Muruguan temple in Mandogalup and Kundrathu Kumaran temple in Rockbank, Melbourne are major Hindu temples for all Australian Hindus and Murugan devotees. In New Zealand, there is a Thirumurugan Temple in Auckland and a Kurinji Kumaran Temple in Wellington, both dedicated to Lord Murugan. In the USA, Shiva Murugan Temple[22] in Concord, Northern California and Murugan Temple of North America[23] in Maryland, Washington DC region are popular. In Toronto, Canada, Canada Kanthasamy Temple is known amongst many Hindus in Canada. In Dollard-des-Ormeaux, a suburb of the city of Montreal in Canada, there is a monumental temple of Murugan. The Sri Sivasubramaniar Temple, located in the Sihl Valley in Adliswil, is the most famous and largest Hindu temple in Switzerland.[24]

Kartikeya (/ˌkɑrtɪˈkeɪjə/), also known as Skanda, Murugan and Subramaniyan, is the Hindu god of war. He is the commander-in-chief of the army of the devas (gods) and the son of Shiva and Parvati.

 

Murugan is often referred to as "Tamil Kadavul" (meaning "God of Tamils") and is worshiped primarily in areas with Tamil influences, especially South India, Sri Lanka, Mauritius, Malaysia, Singapore and Reunion Island. His six most important shrines in India are the Arupadaiveedu temples, located in Tamil Nadu. In Sri Lanka, Hindus as well as Buddhists revere the sacred historical Nallur Kandaswamy temple in Jaffna and Katirkāmam Temple situated deep south.[1] Hindus in Malaysia also pray to Lord Murugan at the Batu Caves and various temples where Thaipusam is celebrated with grandeur.

 

In Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, Kartikeya is known as Subrahmanya with a temple at Kukke Subramanya known for Sarpa shanti rites dedicated to Him and another famous temple at Ghati Subramanya also in Karnataka. In Bengal and Odisha, he is popularly known as Kartikeya (meaning 'son of Krittika').

Other names[edit]

Like most Hindu deities, Subrahmanya is known by many other names, including Senthil, Vēlaṇ, Kumāran (meaning 'prince or child or young one'), Swaminatha (meaning 'smart' or 'clever'), Saravaṇa, Arumugam or Shanmuga (meaning 'one with six faces'), Dandapani (meaning God with a Club), Guhan or Guruguha (meaning 'cave-dweller'), Subrahmanya, Kartikeya and Skanda (meaning 'that which is spilled or oozed).[3][4] He was also known as Mahasena and the Kadamba Dynasty kings worshiped him by this name.[5]

Vedas[edit]

The Atharva Veda describes Kumaran as 'Agnibhuh' because he is form of 'Agni' (Fire God) & Agni hold in his hand when kumaran born. The Satapatha Brahmana refers to him as the son of Rudra and the six faces of Rudra. The Taittiriya Aranyaka contains the Gayatri mantra for Shanmukha. The Chandogya Upanishad refers to Skanda as the "way that leads to wisdom". The Baudhayana Dharmasutra mentions Skanda as 'Mahasena' and 'Subrahmanya.' The Aranya Parva canto of the Mahabharata relates the legend of Kartikeya Skanda in considerable detail. The Skanda Purana is devoted to the narrative of Kartikeya.[6] The Upanishads also constantly make a reference to a Supreme Being called Guha, the indweller.

The first elaborate account of Kartikeya's origin occurs in the Mahabharata. In a complicated story, he is said to have been born from Agni and Svaha, after the latter impersonated the six of the seven wives of the Saptarishi (Seven Sages). The actual wives then become the Pleiades. Kartikeya is said to have been born to destroy the Asura Mahisha.[7] (In later mythology, Mahisha became the adversary of Durga.) Indra attacks Kartikeya as he sees the latter as a threat, until Shiva intervenes and makes Kartikeya the commander-in-chief of the army of the Devas. He is also married to Devasena, Indra's daughter. The origin of this marriage lies probably in the punning of 'Deva-sena-pati'. It can mean either lord of Devasena or Lord of the army (sena) of Devas. But according to Shrii Shrii Anandamurti, in his master work on Shiva[8] and other works, Kartikeya was married to Devasenā and that is on the ground of his name as Devasena's husband, Devasenāpati, misinterpreted as Deva-senāpati (Deva's general) that he was granted the title general and made the Deva's army general.[9]

Tolkappiyam, possibly the most ancient of the Tamil literature mentions him as "Seyon", the three other gods referred in Tolkappiyam are "Maayon", "Indhiran" and "Kotravai(see:Durga). Extant Sangam works, dated between the 3rd century BCE and 5th century CE glorified Murugan, "the red god seated on the blue peacock, who is ever young and resplendent," as "the favoured god of the Tamils."[10] The Sangam poetry divided space and Tamil land into five allegorical areas (tinai) and according to the Tirumurugarruppatai ( c. 400–450 AD) attributed to the great Sangam poet Nakkiirar, Murugan was the presiding deity the Kurinci region (hilly area). (Tirumurugaruppatai is a deeply devotional poem included in the ten idylls (Pattupattu) of the age of the third Sangam). The other Sangam era works in Tamil that refer to Murugan in detail include the Paripaatal, the Akananuru and the Purananuru. One poem in the Paripaatal describes the veneration of Murugan thus:

 

"We implore thee not for boons of enjoyment or wealth,

But for thy grace beatific, love and virtuous deeds."

 

According to the Tamil devotional work, Thiruppugazh, "Murugan never hesitates to come to the aid of a devotee when called upon in piety or distress". In another work, Thirumurukkarrupatai, he is described as a god of eternal youth;

 

His face shines a myriad rays light and removes the darkness from this world.[11]

The references to Murugan can be traced back to the first millennium BCE. There are references to Murugan in Kautilya's Arthashastra, in the works of Patanjali, in Kalidasa's epic poem the Kumarasambhavam. The Kushanas, who governed from what is today Peshawar, and the Yaudheyas, a republican clan in the Punjab, struck coins bearing the image of Skanda. The deity was venerated also by the Ikshvakus, an Andhra dynasty, and the Guptas.[6] The worship of Kumāra was one of the six principal sects of Hinduism at the time of Adi Shankara. The Shanmata system propagated by him included this sect. In many Shiva and Devi temples of Tamil Nadu, Murugan is installed on the left of the main deity. The story of His birth goesas follows:

 

Sati immolated herself in a pyre as her father King Daksha had insulted Shiva, her Lord. She was reborn as Parvathi or Uma, daughter of the King of Himalayas, Himavan. She then married her Lord Shiva. The Devas were under onslaught from the Asuras whose leader was Soorapadman. He had been granted boons that only Lord Shiva or his seed could kill him. Fearless he vanquished the Devas and made them his slaves. The Devas ran to Vishnu for help who told them that it was merely their fault for attending Daksha's yagna, without the presence of Lord Shiva. After this, they ran to Shiva for help. Shiva decided to take action against Soorapadman's increasing conceit. He frowned and his third eye- the eye of knowledge- started releasing sparks. These were six sparks in total. Agni had the responsibility to take them to Saravana Lake. As he was carrying them, the sparks were growing hotter and hotter that even the Lord of Fire could not withstand the heat. Soon after Murugan was born on a lotus in the Saravana Lake with six faces, giving him the name Arumukan. Lord Shiva and Parvati visited and tears of joy started flowing as they witnessed the most handsome child. Shiva and Parvathi gave the responsibility of taking care of Muruga to the six Krittika sisters. Muruga grew up to be a handsome, intelligent, powerful, clever youth. All the Devas applauded at their saviour, who had finally come to release them from their woes. Murugan became the supreme general of the demi-gods, then escorted the devas and led the army of the devas to victory against the asuras.

Though slightly varying versions occur in the Puranas, they broadly follow the same pattern. By this period, the identification of Shiva/Rudra with Agni, that can be traced back to the Vedas and Brahmanas, had clearly made Kartikeya the son of Shiva.[citation needed]

 

The Skanda Purana narrates that Shiva first wed Dakshayani (also named Sati), the first incarnation of Adi Shakthi the granddaughter of Brahma, and the daughter of Daksha. Daksha was a Vishnu devotee and never liked Shiva, who symbolized destruction of evil, detachment, and who lives a simple life . Daksha publicly insults Shiva in a Yagna ceremony, and Dakshayani immolates herself. The Yagna is destroyed by Shiva's avatar Virabhadra. Virabhadra broke the sacrificial vessels, polluted the offerings, insulted the priests and finally cut off Daksha's head, trampled on Indra, broke the staff of Yama, scattered the gods on every side; then he returned to Kailash.[12] Taraka believed that, because Shiva is an ascetic and his earlier marriage was conducted with great difficulty, his remarriage was out of the question, hence his boon of being killed by Shiva's son alone would give him invincibility.

 

The Devas manage to get Shiva married to Parvati (who was Dakshayani, reborn), by making Manmatha (also known as Kama), the God of love awaken him from his penance, but Manmatha incurred the Lord's wrath indicated by the opening his third eye – "Netri Kann", and being destroyed and resurrected. Shiva hands over his effulgence of the third eye used to destroy Manmatha to Agni, as he alone is capable of handling it until it becomes the desired offspring. But even Agni, tortured by its heat, hands it over to Ganga who in turn deposits it in a lake in a forest of reeds (sharavanam). Then Goddess Parvati, took the form of this water body as she alone is capable of taming the Tejas of Shiva, her consort. . The child is finally born in this forest (vana) with six faces: eesanam, sathpurusham, vamadevam, agoram, sathyojatham and adhomugam. He is first spotted and cared for by six women representing the Pleiades — Kritika in Sanskrit. He thus gets named Kartikeya. As a young lad, he destroys Tarakasur. He is also called Kumara (Tamil and Sanskrit for "youth")

Historically, God Kartikeya was immensely popular in the Indian subcontinent. One of the major Puranas, the Skanda Purana is dedicated to him. In the Bhagavad-Gita (Ch.10, Verse 24), Krishna, while explaining his omnipresence, names the most perfect being, mortal or divine, in each of several categories. While doing so, he says: "Among generals, I am Skanda, the lord of war."

 

Kartikeya's presence in the religious and cultural sphere can be seen at least from the Gupta age. Two of the Gupta kings, Kumaragupta and Skandagupta, were named after him. He is seen in the Gupta sculptures and in the temples of Ellora and Elephanta. As the commander of the divine armies, he became the patron of the ruling classes. His youth, beauty and bravery was much celebrated in Sanskrit works like the Kathasaritsagara. Kalidasa made the birth of Kumara the subject of a lyrical epic, the Kumaarasambhavam. In ancient India, Kartikeya was also regarded as the patron deity of thieves, as may be inferred from the Mrichchakatikam, a Sanskrit play by Shudraka, and in the Vetala-panchvimshati, a medieval collection of tales. This association is linked to the fact that Kartikeya had dug through the Krauncha mountain to kill Taraka and his brothers (in the Mrichchakatikam, Sarivilaka prays to him before tunnelling into the hero's house).

 

However, Kartikeya's popularity in North India receded from the Middle Ages onwards, and his worship is today virtually unknown except in parts of Haryana. There is a very famous temple dedicated to Him in the town of Pehowa in Haryana and this temple is very well known in the adjoining areas, especially because women are not allowed anywhere close to it. Women stay away from this temple in Pehowa town of Haryana because this shrine celebrates the Brahmachari form of Kartikeya. Reminders of former devotions to him include a temple at Achaleshwar, near Batala in Punjab, and another temple of Skanda atop the Parvati hill in Pune, Maharashtra. Another vestige of his former popularity can be seen in Bengal and Odisha, where he is worshipped during the Durga Puja festivities alongside Durga. Lord Subramanya is the major deity among the Hindus of northern Kerala. Lord Subramanya is worshipped with utmost devotion in districts of Dakshina Kannada and Udupi in the state of Karnataka. Rituals like nagaradhane are unique to this region.Temples[edit]

The main temples of Murugan are located in Tamil Nadu and other parts of south India. They include the Aru Padaiveedu (six abodes) — Thiruchendur, Swamimalai, Pazhamudircholai, Thirupparangunram, Palani (Pazhani), Thiruthani and other important shrines like Mayilam, Sikkal, Marudamalai, Kundrathur, Vadapalani, Kandakottam, Thiruporur, Vallakottai, Vayalur, Thirumalaikoil, Pachaimalai and Pavalamalai near Gobichettipalayam. Malai Mandir, a prominent and popular temple complex in Delhi, is one of the few dedicated to Murugan in all of North India apart from the Pehowa temple in Haryana.There are many temples dedicated to Lord Subramanya in Kerala. Amongst them are Atiyambur Sri Subramanya Temple in Kanhangad Kasaragod, Payyannur Subramanya Swamy temple in Payyanur, Panmana Subramanya Swamy temple in Panmana and the Subramanya temple in Haripad. There is a temple in Skandagiri, Secunderabad and one in Bikkavolu, East Godavari district in the state of Andhra Pradesh. In Karnataka there is the Kukke Subramanya Temple where Lord Murugan is worshiped as the Lord of the serpents. Aaslesha Bali, Sarpa Samskara with nagapathista samarpa are major prayers here. There is a temple called Malai Mandir in South Delhi. Malai means hill in Tamil. Mandir means temple in Hindi.

 

The key temples in Sri Lanka include the sylvan shrine in Kataragama / (Kadirgamam) or Kathirkamam in the deep south, the temple in Tirukovil in the east, the shrine in Embekke in the Kandyan region and the famed Nallur Kandaswamy temple in Jaffna. There are several temples dedicated to Lord Murugan in Malaysia, the most famous being the Batu Caves near Kuala Lumpur. There is a 42.7-m-high statue of Lord Murugan at the entrance to the Batu Caves, which is the largest Lord Murugan statue in the world. Sri Thandayuthapani Temple in Tank Road, Singapore is a major Hindu temple where each year the Thaipusam festival takes place with devotees of Lord Muruga carrying Kavadis seeking penance and blessings of the Lord.

 

In the United Kingdom, Highgate Hill Murugan temple is one of the oldest and most famous. In London, Sri Murugan Temple in Manor park is a well-known temple. In Midlands, Leicester Shri Siva Murugan Temple[20] is gaining popularity recently. Skanda Vale[21] in West Wales was founded by Guruji, a Tamil devotee of Subramaniam, and its primary deity is Lord Murugan. In Australia, Sydney Murugan temple in Parramatta (Mays Hill), Perth Bala Muruguan temple in Mandogalup and Kundrathu Kumaran temple in Rockbank, Melbourne are major Hindu temples for all Australian Hindus and Murugan devotees. In New Zealand, there is a Thirumurugan Temple in Auckland and a Kurinji Kumaran Temple in Wellington, both dedicated to Lord Murugan. In the USA, Shiva Murugan Temple[22] in Concord, Northern California and Murugan Temple of North America[23] in Maryland, Washington DC region are popular. In Toronto, Canada, Canada Kanthasamy Temple is known amongst many Hindus in Canada. In Dollard-des-Ormeaux, a suburb of the city of Montreal in Canada, there is a monumental temple of Murugan. The Sri Sivasubramaniar Temple, located in the Sihl Valley in Adliswil, is the most famous and largest Hindu temple in Switzerland.[24]

立法會鐵路事宜小組委員會視察港鐵金鐘站

立法会铁路事宜小组委员会视察港铁金钟站

LegCo Subcommittee on Matters Relating to Railways visits the MTR Admiralty Station (2015.05.19)

Kartikeya (/ˌkɑrtɪˈkeɪjə/), also known as Skanda, Murugan and Subramaniyan, is the Hindu god of war. He is the commander-in-chief of the army of the devas (gods) and the son of Shiva and Parvati.

 

Murugan is often referred to as "Tamil Kadavul" (meaning "God of Tamils") and is worshiped primarily in areas with Tamil influences, especially South India, Sri Lanka, Mauritius, Malaysia, Singapore and Reunion Island. His six most important shrines in India are the Arupadaiveedu temples, located in Tamil Nadu. In Sri Lanka, Hindus as well as Buddhists revere the sacred historical Nallur Kandaswamy temple in Jaffna and Katirkāmam Temple situated deep south.[1] Hindus in Malaysia also pray to Lord Murugan at the Batu Caves and various temples where Thaipusam is celebrated with grandeur.

 

In Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, Kartikeya is known as Subrahmanya with a temple at Kukke Subramanya known for Sarpa shanti rites dedicated to Him and another famous temple at Ghati Subramanya also in Karnataka. In Bengal and Odisha, he is popularly known as Kartikeya (meaning 'son of Krittika').

Other names[edit]

Like most Hindu deities, Subrahmanya is known by many other names, including Senthil, Vēlaṇ, Kumāran (meaning 'prince or child or young one'), Swaminatha (meaning 'smart' or 'clever'), Saravaṇa, Arumugam or Shanmuga (meaning 'one with six faces'), Dandapani (meaning God with a Club), Guhan or Guruguha (meaning 'cave-dweller'), Subrahmanya, Kartikeya and Skanda (meaning 'that which is spilled or oozed).[3][4] He was also known as Mahasena and the Kadamba Dynasty kings worshiped him by this name.[5]

Vedas[edit]

The Atharva Veda describes Kumaran as 'Agnibhuh' because he is form of 'Agni' (Fire God) & Agni hold in his hand when kumaran born. The Satapatha Brahmana refers to him as the son of Rudra and the six faces of Rudra. The Taittiriya Aranyaka contains the Gayatri mantra for Shanmukha. The Chandogya Upanishad refers to Skanda as the "way that leads to wisdom". The Baudhayana Dharmasutra mentions Skanda as 'Mahasena' and 'Subrahmanya.' The Aranya Parva canto of the Mahabharata relates the legend of Kartikeya Skanda in considerable detail. The Skanda Purana is devoted to the narrative of Kartikeya.[6] The Upanishads also constantly make a reference to a Supreme Being called Guha, the indweller.

The first elaborate account of Kartikeya's origin occurs in the Mahabharata. In a complicated story, he is said to have been born from Agni and Svaha, after the latter impersonated the six of the seven wives of the Saptarishi (Seven Sages). The actual wives then become the Pleiades. Kartikeya is said to have been born to destroy the Asura Mahisha.[7] (In later mythology, Mahisha became the adversary of Durga.) Indra attacks Kartikeya as he sees the latter as a threat, until Shiva intervenes and makes Kartikeya the commander-in-chief of the army of the Devas. He is also married to Devasena, Indra's daughter. The origin of this marriage lies probably in the punning of 'Deva-sena-pati'. It can mean either lord of Devasena or Lord of the army (sena) of Devas. But according to Shrii Shrii Anandamurti, in his master work on Shiva[8] and other works, Kartikeya was married to Devasenā and that is on the ground of his name as Devasena's husband, Devasenāpati, misinterpreted as Deva-senāpati (Deva's general) that he was granted the title general and made the Deva's army general.[9]

Tolkappiyam, possibly the most ancient of the Tamil literature mentions him as "Seyon", the three other gods referred in Tolkappiyam are "Maayon", "Indhiran" and "Kotravai(see:Durga). Extant Sangam works, dated between the 3rd century BCE and 5th century CE glorified Murugan, "the red god seated on the blue peacock, who is ever young and resplendent," as "the favoured god of the Tamils."[10] The Sangam poetry divided space and Tamil land into five allegorical areas (tinai) and according to the Tirumurugarruppatai ( c. 400–450 AD) attributed to the great Sangam poet Nakkiirar, Murugan was the presiding deity the Kurinci region (hilly area). (Tirumurugaruppatai is a deeply devotional poem included in the ten idylls (Pattupattu) of the age of the third Sangam). The other Sangam era works in Tamil that refer to Murugan in detail include the Paripaatal, the Akananuru and the Purananuru. One poem in the Paripaatal describes the veneration of Murugan thus:

 

"We implore thee not for boons of enjoyment or wealth,

But for thy grace beatific, love and virtuous deeds."

 

According to the Tamil devotional work, Thiruppugazh, "Murugan never hesitates to come to the aid of a devotee when called upon in piety or distress". In another work, Thirumurukkarrupatai, he is described as a god of eternal youth;

 

His face shines a myriad rays light and removes the darkness from this world.[11]

The references to Murugan can be traced back to the first millennium BCE. There are references to Murugan in Kautilya's Arthashastra, in the works of Patanjali, in Kalidasa's epic poem the Kumarasambhavam. The Kushanas, who governed from what is today Peshawar, and the Yaudheyas, a republican clan in the Punjab, struck coins bearing the image of Skanda. The deity was venerated also by the Ikshvakus, an Andhra dynasty, and the Guptas.[6] The worship of Kumāra was one of the six principal sects of Hinduism at the time of Adi Shankara. The Shanmata system propagated by him included this sect. In many Shiva and Devi temples of Tamil Nadu, Murugan is installed on the left of the main deity. The story of His birth goesas follows:

 

Sati immolated herself in a pyre as her father King Daksha had insulted Shiva, her Lord. She was reborn as Parvathi or Uma, daughter of the King of Himalayas, Himavan. She then married her Lord Shiva. The Devas were under onslaught from the Asuras whose leader was Soorapadman. He had been granted boons that only Lord Shiva or his seed could kill him. Fearless he vanquished the Devas and made them his slaves. The Devas ran to Vishnu for help who told them that it was merely their fault for attending Daksha's yagna, without the presence of Lord Shiva. After this, they ran to Shiva for help. Shiva decided to take action against Soorapadman's increasing conceit. He frowned and his third eye- the eye of knowledge- started releasing sparks. These were six sparks in total. Agni had the responsibility to take them to Saravana Lake. As he was carrying them, the sparks were growing hotter and hotter that even the Lord of Fire could not withstand the heat. Soon after Murugan was born on a lotus in the Saravana Lake with six faces, giving him the name Arumukan. Lord Shiva and Parvati visited and tears of joy started flowing as they witnessed the most handsome child. Shiva and Parvathi gave the responsibility of taking care of Muruga to the six Krittika sisters. Muruga grew up to be a handsome, intelligent, powerful, clever youth. All the Devas applauded at their saviour, who had finally come to release them from their woes. Murugan became the supreme general of the demi-gods, then escorted the devas and led the army of the devas to victory against the asuras.

Though slightly varying versions occur in the Puranas, they broadly follow the same pattern. By this period, the identification of Shiva/Rudra with Agni, that can be traced back to the Vedas and Brahmanas, had clearly made Kartikeya the son of Shiva.[citation needed]

 

The Skanda Purana narrates that Shiva first wed Dakshayani (also named Sati), the first incarnation of Adi Shakthi the granddaughter of Brahma, and the daughter of Daksha. Daksha was a Vishnu devotee and never liked Shiva, who symbolized destruction of evil, detachment, and who lives a simple life . Daksha publicly insults Shiva in a Yagna ceremony, and Dakshayani immolates herself. The Yagna is destroyed by Shiva's avatar Virabhadra. Virabhadra broke the sacrificial vessels, polluted the offerings, insulted the priests and finally cut off Daksha's head, trampled on Indra, broke the staff of Yama, scattered the gods on every side; then he returned to Kailash.[12] Taraka believed that, because Shiva is an ascetic and his earlier marriage was conducted with great difficulty, his remarriage was out of the question, hence his boon of being killed by Shiva's son alone would give him invincibility.

 

The Devas manage to get Shiva married to Parvati (who was Dakshayani, reborn), by making Manmatha (also known as Kama), the God of love awaken him from his penance, but Manmatha incurred the Lord's wrath indicated by the opening his third eye – "Netri Kann", and being destroyed and resurrected. Shiva hands over his effulgence of the third eye used to destroy Manmatha to Agni, as he alone is capable of handling it until it becomes the desired offspring. But even Agni, tortured by its heat, hands it over to Ganga who in turn deposits it in a lake in a forest of reeds (sharavanam). Then Goddess Parvati, took the form of this water body as she alone is capable of taming the Tejas of Shiva, her consort. . The child is finally born in this forest (vana) with six faces: eesanam, sathpurusham, vamadevam, agoram, sathyojatham and adhomugam. He is first spotted and cared for by six women representing the Pleiades — Kritika in Sanskrit. He thus gets named Kartikeya. As a young lad, he destroys Tarakasur. He is also called Kumara (Tamil and Sanskrit for "youth")

Historically, God Kartikeya was immensely popular in the Indian subcontinent. One of the major Puranas, the Skanda Purana is dedicated to him. In the Bhagavad-Gita (Ch.10, Verse 24), Krishna, while explaining his omnipresence, names the most perfect being, mortal or divine, in each of several categories. While doing so, he says: "Among generals, I am Skanda, the lord of war."

 

Kartikeya's presence in the religious and cultural sphere can be seen at least from the Gupta age. Two of the Gupta kings, Kumaragupta and Skandagupta, were named after him. He is seen in the Gupta sculptures and in the temples of Ellora and Elephanta. As the commander of the divine armies, he became the patron of the ruling classes. His youth, beauty and bravery was much celebrated in Sanskrit works like the Kathasaritsagara. Kalidasa made the birth of Kumara the subject of a lyrical epic, the Kumaarasambhavam. In ancient India, Kartikeya was also regarded as the patron deity of thieves, as may be inferred from the Mrichchakatikam, a Sanskrit play by Shudraka, and in the Vetala-panchvimshati, a medieval collection of tales. This association is linked to the fact that Kartikeya had dug through the Krauncha mountain to kill Taraka and his brothers (in the Mrichchakatikam, Sarivilaka prays to him before tunnelling into the hero's house).

 

However, Kartikeya's popularity in North India receded from the Middle Ages onwards, and his worship is today virtually unknown except in parts of Haryana. There is a very famous temple dedicated to Him in the town of Pehowa in Haryana and this temple is very well known in the adjoining areas, especially because women are not allowed anywhere close to it. Women stay away from this temple in Pehowa town of Haryana because this shrine celebrates the Brahmachari form of Kartikeya. Reminders of former devotions to him include a temple at Achaleshwar, near Batala in Punjab, and another temple of Skanda atop the Parvati hill in Pune, Maharashtra. Another vestige of his former popularity can be seen in Bengal and Odisha, where he is worshipped during the Durga Puja festivities alongside Durga. Lord Subramanya is the major deity among the Hindus of northern Kerala. Lord Subramanya is worshipped with utmost devotion in districts of Dakshina Kannada and Udupi in the state of Karnataka. Rituals like nagaradhane are unique to this region.Temples[edit]

The main temples of Murugan are located in Tamil Nadu and other parts of south India. They include the Aru Padaiveedu (six abodes) — Thiruchendur, Swamimalai, Pazhamudircholai, Thirupparangunram, Palani (Pazhani), Thiruthani and other important shrines like Mayilam, Sikkal, Marudamalai, Kundrathur, Vadapalani, Kandakottam, Thiruporur, Vallakottai, Vayalur, Thirumalaikoil, Pachaimalai and Pavalamalai near Gobichettipalayam. Malai Mandir, a prominent and popular temple complex in Delhi, is one of the few dedicated to Murugan in all of North India apart from the Pehowa temple in Haryana.There are many temples dedicated to Lord Subramanya in Kerala. Amongst them are Atiyambur Sri Subramanya Temple in Kanhangad Kasaragod, Payyannur Subramanya Swamy temple in Payyanur, Panmana Subramanya Swamy temple in Panmana and the Subramanya temple in Haripad. There is a temple in Skandagiri, Secunderabad and one in Bikkavolu, East Godavari district in the state of Andhra Pradesh. In Karnataka there is the Kukke Subramanya Temple where Lord Murugan is worshiped as the Lord of the serpents. Aaslesha Bali, Sarpa Samskara with nagapathista samarpa are major prayers here. There is a temple called Malai Mandir in South Delhi. Malai means hill in Tamil. Mandir means temple in Hindi.

 

The key temples in Sri Lanka include the sylvan shrine in Kataragama / (Kadirgamam) or Kathirkamam in the deep south, the temple in Tirukovil in the east, the shrine in Embekke in the Kandyan region and the famed Nallur Kandaswamy temple in Jaffna. There are several temples dedicated to Lord Murugan in Malaysia, the most famous being the Batu Caves near Kuala Lumpur. There is a 42.7-m-high statue of Lord Murugan at the entrance to the Batu Caves, which is the largest Lord Murugan statue in the world. Sri Thandayuthapani Temple in Tank Road, Singapore is a major Hindu temple where each year the Thaipusam festival takes place with devotees of Lord Muruga carrying Kavadis seeking penance and blessings of the Lord.

 

In the United Kingdom, Highgate Hill Murugan temple is one of the oldest and most famous. In London, Sri Murugan Temple in Manor park is a well-known temple. In Midlands, Leicester Shri Siva Murugan Temple[20] is gaining popularity recently. Skanda Vale[21] in West Wales was founded by Guruji, a Tamil devotee of Subramaniam, and its primary deity is Lord Murugan. In Australia, Sydney Murugan temple in Parramatta (Mays Hill), Perth Bala Muruguan temple in Mandogalup and Kundrathu Kumaran temple in Rockbank, Melbourne are major Hindu temples for all Australian Hindus and Murugan devotees. In New Zealand, there is a Thirumurugan Temple in Auckland and a Kurinji Kumaran Temple in Wellington, both dedicated to Lord Murugan. In the USA, Shiva Murugan Temple[22] in Concord, Northern California and Murugan Temple of North America[23] in Maryland, Washington DC region are popular. In Toronto, Canada, Canada Kanthasamy Temple is known amongst many Hindus in Canada. In Dollard-des-Ormeaux, a suburb of the city of Montreal in Canada, there is a monumental temple of Murugan. The Sri Sivasubramaniar Temple, located in the Sihl Valley in Adliswil, is the most famous and largest Hindu temple in Switzerland.[24]

 

The performance relates the shorter version of the epic Ramayana Saga with dancers playing as Rama, Shinta (Sita), Lakshmana, Rahwana (Ravana), Hanoman (Hanuman), Sugriwa (Sugriva), and other characters. The storyline starts when Prince Rama wanders into the woods with his wife Shinta and brother Lakshmana. There, the giant Rahwana kidnaps Shinta and holds her in his palace. Rama then seeks help and sends Lakhsmana to find his friend Sugriwa, the King of the Monkey Kingdom. Sugriwa sends his commander the white monkey, by the name of Hanoman, to check on Shinta in Rahwana’s Palace.

 

A dramatic scene is portrayed when Hanoman is captured by Rahwana’s troops and put inside a circle of fire to burn him alive. Instead of burning to crisp, the white monkey warrior remains unharmed and breaks out only to burn Rahwana’s palace instead. Thus, began the battle between the two forces.

 

At first, Rahwana and his troops manage to overrun Rama. However, Sugriwa and Hanoman then come to Rama’s aid along with the rest of the monkey troops, defeat the evil king once and for all.

 

Taken @Bali, Indonesia

Scanned from an album I've had since the early 1980's. If you have any information relating to this photo, please feel free to leave a comment. Thank you.

The description and specifications relate to the Pitts Special as this is an identical aircraft to the S1 and S2S.

 

The Pitts Special is a light aerobatic biplane designed by Curtis Pitts. It has accumulated many competition wins since its first flight in 1944. The Pitts Special dominated world aerobatic competition in the 1960s and 1970s and, even today, remains a potent competition aircraft and is a favourite for many an aerobatic pilot.

 

General characteristics

 

•Crew: Two

•Length: 18 ft 9 in (5.71 m)

•Wingspan: 20 ft 0 in (6.10 m)

•Height: 6 ft 7⅓ in (2.02 m)

•Wing area: 125 ft² (11.6 m²)

•Empty weight: 1,150 lb (521 kg)

•Max takeoff weight: 1,625 lb (737 kg)

•Powerplant: 1× Textron Lycoming AEIO-540-D4A5 flat-six air cooled piston engine, 260 hp (194 kW)

 

Performance

 

•Never exceed speed: 182 knots (210 mph, 338 km/h)

•Cruise speed: 152 knots (175 mph, 282 km/h) (max cruise)

•Stall speed: 52 knots (60 mph, 97 km/h)

•Range: 277 NM (319 mi, 513 km)

•Service ceiling: 21,000 ft (6,400 m)

•Rate of climb: 2,700 ft/min (13.7 m/s)

•Wing loading: 13.0 lb/ft² (63.6 kg/m²)

•Power/mass: 0.16 hp/lb (0.26 kW/kg)

 

Text and specifications based on Wikipedia article under the Creative Commons License for non-profit use.

Our portrait session began with whether Jessica relates more to paintings by Seurat or Signac? This led to a whole art history discussion that included Van Gogh, Lichtenstein and Pollock.

Of course shooting in a near pitch black room led us to talk of constellations, the zodiac and whether anyone had ever wished upon one of her freckles at night. (Not yet)

 

Google+: +Alan Shapiro

Facebook: www.facebook.com/pages/Alan-Shapiro-Photography/136462319...

My blog: alanwshapiro.blogspot.com

Twitter: @alansphotos

www.alanshapiro.photoshelter.com

www.alansphotos.500px.com

www.alanshapirophotography.tumblr.com

Dundalk overwhelm Bangor in All Ireland Final

by Roger Corbett

Bangor’s amazing run in the All Ireland Junior Cup came to an abrupt end when they were comprehensively beaten by Dundalk, eventually losing by 55-5.

Where do you start when trying to relate and absorb the events of Saturday’s final at Chambers Park? Firstly, congratulations to worthy winners Dundalk who nullified the Bangor attack, then went on to produce some stunning plays which racked up no less than 8 tries, each by a different player. For Bangor’s part, they were unable to respond to the intensity of Dundalk’s game, and lacked the cutting edge which their opponents used to great effect.

The day started full of promise, as the strong support from North Down made their way to Chambers Park in Portadown, knowing Bangor would be fielding their best team. Once again, the pundits had Bangor as the underdogs – just as they had done so in the previous three rounds! In confounding the experts earlier, Bangor produced some awesome performances against top quality opposition to get to the final. Dundalk had produced some convincing wins in the early rounds of the competition, but had struggled to get past CIYMS in the semi-final, just managing to squeeze ahead at the second time of asking. However, with a number of key players returning to the side in time for this game, they were now back at full strength and would be a formidable force to contend with.

Having won the toss, captain Jamie Clegg elected to play into the stiff wind in the first half. For the first 5 minutes, Bangor doggedly retained possession and tried to play their way into Dundalk’s half through a series of determined forward moves. However, little ground was made and, when possession was finally lost, the Dundalk back line produced a burst that simply cut through the Bangor defence resulting in an easy touch down under Bangor’s posts for a 7-0 lead.

Bangor stuck to their plan and slowly, but patiently, got their attack moving forward, eventually winning a penalty to the left of Dundalk’s posts, but Mark Widdowson’s kick into the wind drifted just wide of the mark.

The contrast in play between the two teams was becoming clear, with Bangor trying to keep the ball close while Dundalk were throwing it wide. The latter strategy was proving to be the more effective as, with 20 minutes gone, a quick back line move with players looping around resulted in an overlap on the right wing which gave a clear run in to again, score under the posts. A further 9 minutes later, they did it again and, although the Bangor defence had sensed the danger and moved across to cover it, their tackling let them down allowing Dundalk to get over in the right hand corner, taking their lead to 19-0.

By now, Bangor were trying to hang on until half time when they could regroup and come out with the wind at their backs. Dundalk, on the other hand were anxious to press home their advantage and give them a more comfortable lead. To Bangor’s credit, although camped on their own line for lengthy spells, they dug in and managed to hold on until the referee’s half time whistle.

As the teams reappeared from the dressing rooms, it was obvious Bangor were ringing the changes, particularly in the backs. With the wind advantage having lessened considerably, Bangor got the second half underway. It was now Dundalk’s turn to adopt the slow, steady approach, just as Bangor had done earlier. However, their more confident off-loading and support play was, once again, taking play deep into Bangor’s territory. Frustration at not being able to gain possession and take play out of their danger area eventually resulted in a yellow card for Clegg after a succession of penalties. Dundalk kicked the penalty to touch, won their lineout and drove for the line. Although initially held up by the Bangor defence, Dundalk’s repeated drives were eventually rewarded with another converted score, extending their lead to 26-0.

From the touchline, the Bangor faithful had felt that if their players had managed to score first in the second half, they may have been able to mount a fight-back and close the gap to their opponents. As it was, this Dundalk score simply bolstered their confidence and pushed Bangor deeper into trouble. With Bangor still a man down, Dundalk added to the score with a penalty and then another score in the corner. Everything was now working for the Leinster men, as even the difficult touchline conversion into the biting wind successfully split the posts, bringing the score to 36-0.

As the game entered the final quarter, and with Dundalk all but holding the cup, Bangor were now on the ropes. By contrast, the Dundalk players were in almost total control, and were not going to slow down now. In a 10 minute spell, they ran in a further 3 tries, making the scoreline 55-0. By now, any sense of dejection the Bangor supporters may have been feeling was now moved to feelings of sympathy for their players. However, pride was at stake and once again Bangor rallied as the game entered its final minutes. At last, the forwards got within striking distance of the Dundalk line and, although their repeated attacks were repelled, they finally managed to do what their opponents had done so effectively, and quickly passed the ball wide to Davy Charles. Even though they were 55 points ahead, the Dundalk defence made Charles work hard to drive through the tackles and score Bangor’s consolation try, bringing the final score to 55-5.

From Bangor’s point of view, the final score doesn’t tell the whole story of this competition. While the final may have resulted in a sad anti-climax for Bangor, the remarkable journey to get there will be remembered for some time. On the day, Dundalk were by far the better side, and Bangor would have to concede that their game was not up to the usual standard. However, there is no doubt the experience of competing at this level is something to relish and the goal now will be to secure a top four place in the league and try again next year.

Everybody at the club has nothing but the highest respect and praise for what has been achieved this year by not just the 1sts, but all the senior teams, and one poor result isn’t going to change that – the welcome at Upritchard Park for the returning players is testament to that. With that in mind, the players now need to put this disappointment behind them and provide the best possible response against a struggling Portadown side at home in the league next Saturday.

Bangor side: J Leary, A Jackson, P Whyte, F Black, G Irvine, R Latimer, J Clegg, C Stewart, R Armstrong, K Rosson, D Charles, M Aspley, M Weir, M Widdowson, C Morgan

Subs: S Irvine, O McIlmurray, D Kelly, M Rodgers, C Harper, D Fusco, M Thompson

Bangor scores: D Charles (1T)

Dundalk Storm To Title Dundalk 55 v Bangor 5 from KnockOn.ie

Dundalk Scorers: Christopher Scully, Owen McNally, Jonathan Williams, John Smyth, Ultan Murphy, Tiernan Gonnelly, James McConnon and Stephen Murphy 1 try each. Ultan Murphy 6 cons, 1 pen.

Bangor Scorers: David Charles 1 try.

In front of a big crowd at Chambers Park on Saturday afternoon Dundalk delivered a stunning and ruthless display to see off the challenge of Bangor and capture the All Ireland Junior Cup title for the very first time.

Three first half tries had them firmly in control at 19-0 ahead having played with the elements at the Portadown venue during the first half and while the wind dropped somewhat after half time the Dundalk intensity most certainly didn’t as they cut loose scoring five more tries.

Dundalk returned to a heroes welcome at their Mill Road clubhouse on Saturday night after a display of pure brilliance throughout the afternoon.

Precision, pace and skill from the Louth men from start to finish left Bangor playing second fiddle for long periods.

There were two ships named "Uralla" operating on the North Coast of NSW. The description below relates to vessel I have called Uralla 2 that was built at Grangemouth, Scotland in 1926 and distinguishes her from another ship, that I have called Uralla 1 (1908 - 1912), was built by Denis Sullivan at Coopernook and also operated along the coast of NSW. Uralla 1 was renamed Tilba after she was sold to the South Coast Steam Navigation Co. and was wrecked at Wreck Bay, near Jervis Bay in 1912.

 

Uralla 2 is a typical example of the small coastal ships that were owned and operated by the North Coast Steam Navigation Company along the northern rivers of New South Wales, which helped to play a major part towards the development of the Northern New South Wales region.

 

In 1928, only two years after her construction, an enormous sea struck her amidships, destroying her steering gear. Anchors were dropped, but they could not hold her and she ran ashore on Stockton Beach, around 12 miles north-east of Newcastle, NSW on June 14th, 1928. While the crew were able to wade ashore at low tide, attempts to refloat her failed and she was eventually sold. The new owners managed to refloat her briefly, but could not prevent her drifting ashore again, where she eventually broke up.

 

Captain F. P. O'Beirne, was in charge of the Uralla 2, which was beached at Stockton in June 1928. Captain O'Beirne received a handsome gold watch and chain from the North Coast Steamship Company, bearing the following inscription: "Presented to Captain F. P. O'Beirne from the directors of the North Coast Steamship Navigation Company, Ltd., as an appreciation of his seamanship in saving all hands aboard the S.S. Uralla. Beached 14th June, 1928, at Stockton."

Captain O'Beirne had been a master on the North Coast for 47 years.

 

The design of the Uralla 2 is distinctive, especially its very tall funnel (40 feet), which is capped with a Navy-type cowl. The unique height given to this funnel was arguably to give it effective natural draught for steaming qualities. Along with the funnel, was the steamer's stern of buff counter design (that somewhat resembled a cruiser stern) and the amount of space for general cargo (including refrigerated space for North Coast dairy produce), which was unusual for a ship of its small size.

 

References

Anon. "New Steamer. The Uralla arrives after a long voyage." Sydney Morning Herald 25 May 1926

Anon. "Uralla Ashore", Sydney Morning Herald (June 1928)

Hickey, T., "Ships of Yesteryear", Power Boat & Yachting (May, 1969) pp.52-53

Richards, M., "North Coast Run: Men and Ships of the New South Wales North Coast" (Killara, 1977) pp.113-119

The Grangemouth Dockyard Co Ltd was established in 1885 by William Miller and Samuel Pophouse Jackson. The company started with a shipbuilding yard in Grangemouth, Falkirk and in 1888 acquired two yards in Alloa, Clackmannanshire and Ardrossan, North Ayrshire. In 1900 a yard was acquired in Greenock, Inverclyde and the company renamed itself the Grangemouth and Greenock Dockyard Company.

 

Along with the production of the 'Uralla' were also three sister ships known as the 'Uki', 'Urana' and 'Tyalgum'. As with the 'Uralla', the other ships also had a neat appearance with a black hull, red boot topping, buff masts and eye catching bridge structures with wheelhouses of varnished teak. And, like the 'Uralla', the fates of these vessels were also, almost entirely, short-lived. The 'Urana' was wrecked near the Old Bar in the Taree District during 1937; the 'Tyalgum' was wrecked at the Tweed Bar in September 1939, while the 'Uki' survived and served as a Naval Patrol vessel during World War II, before finally being sold and hulked at Brisbane in 1960. Of these models, the National Maritime Museum also has the 'Uki' and 'Tyalgum' in its collection.

 

History Notes

The TSS 'Uralla' was the North Coast Steam Navigation Company's cargo steamer, which served bar harbours and rivers in New South Wales from 1926-1928. The steamer was officially launched on December 18, 1925 and commenced sea trials on February 6, 1926 on the Burnt Island mile. It was registered in Sydney in July, 1926.

 

The vessel left Grangemouth on February 12, 1926 but was forced to put into Gibraltar on March 1 for repairs. After a stay of two days she continued the voyage to Sydney, via Port Said, Colombo, and Singapore. When coming down the Queensland coast the little craft ran into the recent cyclone, and at one time stood by the steamer Wonganella. On Monday, May 17 the seas were so great that oil bags had to be brought into use to pre- vent the great waves breaking over the vessel, and causing damage. The vessel came through the storm remarkably well, and, after a call at Moreton Bay, completed her long voyage yesterday. The voyage from Thursday Island to Sydney occupied 30 days.

 

The Uralla 2 had a short use-life. In mid-June 1928, she was steaming south to Sydney (from the Richmond River) with a cargo of timber when fierce weather intervened. The steamer managed to reach as far as Barrenjoey, before the master, Captain O'Beirne, decided to turn back towards Newcastle. Even though the turn was made successfully in the grip of a heavy gale, the steamer shipped a heavy sea as she steamed north off Norah Head, spelling disaster. This was only 4 miles from the location where the 'White Bay' sunk (killing all its crew) only a few days earlier.

 

The sea unshipped one of the lifeboats, which crashed on top of the steam steering gear, putting it out of action. The anchors were let go, but the ship drifted and the cables parted. The captain decided to manoeuvre the ship with the twin screws and make a run for Stockton Beach, where she became stranded. The 17 crew on board (F.P. O'Beirne, master; Simon Simonsen, chief officer; Roy T. Steel, chief engineer; J. Laycock, second engineer; Gus Carlson; Harry Tomes; W.E. Hill; Peter McEntee; William Erickson; Emo Neemelson; William Pry, seaman; J. Halliday; Matt Woodbury; Thomas Crocker, fireman; Jack Jones, donkeyman; Alec McLeod, cook and Henry P. Ingham, steward) were all safely rescued.

 

Several unsuccessful attempts were made at trying to free the Uralla 2, prompting the decision to auction the £28,000 vessel at the rooms of F.R. Strange Ltd. The successful bidder, Mr E. S. Budrodeen, bought the steamer for only £1600 and after doing so, was then faced with trying to salvage the steamer himself. Budrodeen managed to get the steamer afloat, but without a tug to tow the 'Uralla' clear of the beach and breakers, meant she ended up drifting back to her original position. It was here that she slowly settled in the sand and finally disintegrated.

 

Location of wreck www.flickr.com/map?&fLat=-32.7929&fLon=151.9752&a...

Periodista, Relator deportivo, hombre de la cultura argentino-uruguaya. Nació en Uruguay y se ha consolidado como una persona de los medios en Argentina. Ver información en

es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_hugo_morales

Esta foto la tomé en los estudios de Radio Continental en 1985 para Radio Continental.

Copyright © Susana Mulé- All rights reserved.

Do not use this photographs without my consent. If you are interested in this picture, please contact me. Thanks.

susanamul@yahoo.com.ar

 

Dundalk overwhelm Bangor in All Ireland Final

by Roger Corbett

Bangor’s amazing run in the All Ireland Junior Cup came to an abrupt end when they were comprehensively beaten by Dundalk, eventually losing by 55-5.

Where do you start when trying to relate and absorb the events of Saturday’s final at Chambers Park? Firstly, congratulations to worthy winners Dundalk who nullified the Bangor attack, then went on to produce some stunning plays which racked up no less than 8 tries, each by a different player. For Bangor’s part, they were unable to respond to the intensity of Dundalk’s game, and lacked the cutting edge which their opponents used to great effect.

The day started full of promise, as the strong support from North Down made their way to Chambers Park in Portadown, knowing Bangor would be fielding their best team. Once again, the pundits had Bangor as the underdogs – just as they had done so in the previous three rounds! In confounding the experts earlier, Bangor produced some awesome performances against top quality opposition to get to the final. Dundalk had produced some convincing wins in the early rounds of the competition, but had struggled to get past CIYMS in the semi-final, just managing to squeeze ahead at the second time of asking. However, with a number of key players returning to the side in time for this game, they were now back at full strength and would be a formidable force to contend with.

Having won the toss, captain Jamie Clegg elected to play into the stiff wind in the first half. For the first 5 minutes, Bangor doggedly retained possession and tried to play their way into Dundalk’s half through a series of determined forward moves. However, little ground was made and, when possession was finally lost, the Dundalk back line produced a burst that simply cut through the Bangor defence resulting in an easy touch down under Bangor’s posts for a 7-0 lead.

Bangor stuck to their plan and slowly, but patiently, got their attack moving forward, eventually winning a penalty to the left of Dundalk’s posts, but Mark Widdowson’s kick into the wind drifted just wide of the mark.

The contrast in play between the two teams was becoming clear, with Bangor trying to keep the ball close while Dundalk were throwing it wide. The latter strategy was proving to be the more effective as, with 20 minutes gone, a quick back line move with players looping around resulted in an overlap on the right wing which gave a clear run in to again, score under the posts. A further 9 minutes later, they did it again and, although the Bangor defence had sensed the danger and moved across to cover it, their tackling let them down allowing Dundalk to get over in the right hand corner, taking their lead to 19-0.

By now, Bangor were trying to hang on until half time when they could regroup and come out with the wind at their backs. Dundalk, on the other hand were anxious to press home their advantage and give them a more comfortable lead. To Bangor’s credit, although camped on their own line for lengthy spells, they dug in and managed to hold on until the referee’s half time whistle.

As the teams reappeared from the dressing rooms, it was obvious Bangor were ringing the changes, particularly in the backs. With the wind advantage having lessened considerably, Bangor got the second half underway. It was now Dundalk’s turn to adopt the slow, steady approach, just as Bangor had done earlier. However, their more confident off-loading and support play was, once again, taking play deep into Bangor’s territory. Frustration at not being able to gain possession and take play out of their danger area eventually resulted in a yellow card for Clegg after a succession of penalties. Dundalk kicked the penalty to touch, won their lineout and drove for the line. Although initially held up by the Bangor defence, Dundalk’s repeated drives were eventually rewarded with another converted score, extending their lead to 26-0.

From the touchline, the Bangor faithful had felt that if their players had managed to score first in the second half, they may have been able to mount a fight-back and close the gap to their opponents. As it was, this Dundalk score simply bolstered their confidence and pushed Bangor deeper into trouble. With Bangor still a man down, Dundalk added to the score with a penalty and then another score in the corner. Everything was now working for the Leinster men, as even the difficult touchline conversion into the biting wind successfully split the posts, bringing the score to 36-0.

As the game entered the final quarter, and with Dundalk all but holding the cup, Bangor were now on the ropes. By contrast, the Dundalk players were in almost total control, and were not going to slow down now. In a 10 minute spell, they ran in a further 3 tries, making the scoreline 55-0. By now, any sense of dejection the Bangor supporters may have been feeling was now moved to feelings of sympathy for their players. However, pride was at stake and once again Bangor rallied as the game entered its final minutes. At last, the forwards got within striking distance of the Dundalk line and, although their repeated attacks were repelled, they finally managed to do what their opponents had done so effectively, and quickly passed the ball wide to Davy Charles. Even though they were 55 points ahead, the Dundalk defence made Charles work hard to drive through the tackles and score Bangor’s consolation try, bringing the final score to 55-5.

From Bangor’s point of view, the final score doesn’t tell the whole story of this competition. While the final may have resulted in a sad anti-climax for Bangor, the remarkable journey to get there will be remembered for some time. On the day, Dundalk were by far the better side, and Bangor would have to concede that their game was not up to the usual standard. However, there is no doubt the experience of competing at this level is something to relish and the goal now will be to secure a top four place in the league and try again next year.

Everybody at the club has nothing but the highest respect and praise for what has been achieved this year by not just the 1sts, but all the senior teams, and one poor result isn’t going to change that – the welcome at Upritchard Park for the returning players is testament to that. With that in mind, the players now need to put this disappointment behind them and provide the best possible response against a struggling Portadown side at home in the league next Saturday.

Bangor side: J Leary, A Jackson, P Whyte, F Black, G Irvine, R Latimer, J Clegg, C Stewart, R Armstrong, K Rosson, D Charles, M Aspley, M Weir, M Widdowson, C Morgan

Subs: S Irvine, O McIlmurray, D Kelly, M Rodgers, C Harper, D Fusco, M Thompson

Bangor scores: D Charles (1T)

Dundalk Storm To Title Dundalk 55 v Bangor 5 from KnockOn.ie

Dundalk Scorers: Christopher Scully, Owen McNally, Jonathan Williams, John Smyth, Ultan Murphy, Tiernan Gonnelly, James McConnon and Stephen Murphy 1 try each. Ultan Murphy 6 cons, 1 pen.

Bangor Scorers: David Charles 1 try.

In front of a big crowd at Chambers Park on Saturday afternoon Dundalk delivered a stunning and ruthless display to see off the challenge of Bangor and capture the All Ireland Junior Cup title for the very first time.

Three first half tries had them firmly in control at 19-0 ahead having played with the elements at the Portadown venue during the first half and while the wind dropped somewhat after half time the Dundalk intensity most certainly didn’t as they cut loose scoring five more tries.

Dundalk returned to a heroes welcome at their Mill Road clubhouse on Saturday night after a display of pure brilliance throughout the afternoon.

Precision, pace and skill from the Louth men from start to finish left Bangor playing second fiddle for long periods.

Dundalk overwhelm Bangor in All Ireland Final

by Roger Corbett

Bangor’s amazing run in the All Ireland Junior Cup came to an abrupt end when they were comprehensively beaten by Dundalk, eventually losing by 55-5.

Where do you start when trying to relate and absorb the events of Saturday’s final at Chambers Park? Firstly, congratulations to worthy winners Dundalk who nullified the Bangor attack, then went on to produce some stunning plays which racked up no less than 8 tries, each by a different player. For Bangor’s part, they were unable to respond to the intensity of Dundalk’s game, and lacked the cutting edge which their opponents used to great effect.

The day started full of promise, as the strong support from North Down made their way to Chambers Park in Portadown, knowing Bangor would be fielding their best team. Once again, the pundits had Bangor as the underdogs – just as they had done so in the previous three rounds! In confounding the experts earlier, Bangor produced some awesome performances against top quality opposition to get to the final. Dundalk had produced some convincing wins in the early rounds of the competition, but had struggled to get past CIYMS in the semi-final, just managing to squeeze ahead at the second time of asking. However, with a number of key players returning to the side in time for this game, they were now back at full strength and would be a formidable force to contend with.

Having won the toss, captain Jamie Clegg elected to play into the stiff wind in the first half. For the first 5 minutes, Bangor doggedly retained possession and tried to play their way into Dundalk’s half through a series of determined forward moves. However, little ground was made and, when possession was finally lost, the Dundalk back line produced a burst that simply cut through the Bangor defence resulting in an easy touch down under Bangor’s posts for a 7-0 lead.

Bangor stuck to their plan and slowly, but patiently, got their attack moving forward, eventually winning a penalty to the left of Dundalk’s posts, but Mark Widdowson’s kick into the wind drifted just wide of the mark.

The contrast in play between the two teams was becoming clear, with Bangor trying to keep the ball close while Dundalk were throwing it wide. The latter strategy was proving to be the more effective as, with 20 minutes gone, a quick back line move with players looping around resulted in an overlap on the right wing which gave a clear run in to again, score under the posts. A further 9 minutes later, they did it again and, although the Bangor defence had sensed the danger and moved across to cover it, their tackling let them down allowing Dundalk to get over in the right hand corner, taking their lead to 19-0.

By now, Bangor were trying to hang on until half time when they could regroup and come out with the wind at their backs. Dundalk, on the other hand were anxious to press home their advantage and give them a more comfortable lead. To Bangor’s credit, although camped on their own line for lengthy spells, they dug in and managed to hold on until the referee’s half time whistle.

As the teams reappeared from the dressing rooms, it was obvious Bangor were ringing the changes, particularly in the backs. With the wind advantage having lessened considerably, Bangor got the second half underway. It was now Dundalk’s turn to adopt the slow, steady approach, just as Bangor had done earlier. However, their more confident off-loading and support play was, once again, taking play deep into Bangor’s territory. Frustration at not being able to gain possession and take play out of their danger area eventually resulted in a yellow card for Clegg after a succession of penalties. Dundalk kicked the penalty to touch, won their lineout and drove for the line. Although initially held up by the Bangor defence, Dundalk’s repeated drives were eventually rewarded with another converted score, extending their lead to 26-0.

From the touchline, the Bangor faithful had felt that if their players had managed to score first in the second half, they may have been able to mount a fight-back and close the gap to their opponents. As it was, this Dundalk score simply bolstered their confidence and pushed Bangor deeper into trouble. With Bangor still a man down, Dundalk added to the score with a penalty and then another score in the corner. Everything was now working for the Leinster men, as even the difficult touchline conversion into the biting wind successfully split the posts, bringing the score to 36-0.

As the game entered the final quarter, and with Dundalk all but holding the cup, Bangor were now on the ropes. By contrast, the Dundalk players were in almost total control, and were not going to slow down now. In a 10 minute spell, they ran in a further 3 tries, making the scoreline 55-0. By now, any sense of dejection the Bangor supporters may have been feeling was now moved to feelings of sympathy for their players. However, pride was at stake and once again Bangor rallied as the game entered its final minutes. At last, the forwards got within striking distance of the Dundalk line and, although their repeated attacks were repelled, they finally managed to do what their opponents had done so effectively, and quickly passed the ball wide to Davy Charles. Even though they were 55 points ahead, the Dundalk defence made Charles work hard to drive through the tackles and score Bangor’s consolation try, bringing the final score to 55-5.

From Bangor’s point of view, the final score doesn’t tell the whole story of this competition. While the final may have resulted in a sad anti-climax for Bangor, the remarkable journey to get there will be remembered for some time. On the day, Dundalk were by far the better side, and Bangor would have to concede that their game was not up to the usual standard. However, there is no doubt the experience of competing at this level is something to relish and the goal now will be to secure a top four place in the league and try again next year.

Everybody at the club has nothing but the highest respect and praise for what has been achieved this year by not just the 1sts, but all the senior teams, and one poor result isn’t going to change that – the welcome at Upritchard Park for the returning players is testament to that. With that in mind, the players now need to put this disappointment behind them and provide the best possible response against a struggling Portadown side at home in the league next Saturday.

Bangor side: J Leary, A Jackson, P Whyte, F Black, G Irvine, R Latimer, J Clegg, C Stewart, R Armstrong, K Rosson, D Charles, M Aspley, M Weir, M Widdowson, C Morgan

Subs: S Irvine, O McIlmurray, D Kelly, M Rodgers, C Harper, D Fusco, M Thompson

Bangor scores: D Charles (1T)

Dundalk Storm To Title Dundalk 55 v Bangor 5 from KnockOn.ie

Dundalk Scorers: Christopher Scully, Owen McNally, Jonathan Williams, John Smyth, Ultan Murphy, Tiernan Gonnelly, James McConnon and Stephen Murphy 1 try each. Ultan Murphy 6 cons, 1 pen.

Bangor Scorers: David Charles 1 try.

In front of a big crowd at Chambers Park on Saturday afternoon Dundalk delivered a stunning and ruthless display to see off the challenge of Bangor and capture the All Ireland Junior Cup title for the very first time.

Three first half tries had them firmly in control at 19-0 ahead having played with the elements at the Portadown venue during the first half and while the wind dropped somewhat after half time the Dundalk intensity most certainly didn’t as they cut loose scoring five more tries.

Dundalk returned to a heroes welcome at their Mill Road clubhouse on Saturday night after a display of pure brilliance throughout the afternoon.

Precision, pace and skill from the Louth men from start to finish left Bangor playing second fiddle for long periods.

The Eternal Return

Shear, Jules

EMI America 17156

1985