Добірка наукової літератури з теми "Iron age – Turkey"

Оформте джерело за APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard та іншими стилями

Оберіть тип джерела:

Ознайомтеся зі списками актуальних статей, книг, дисертацій, тез та інших наукових джерел на тему "Iron age – Turkey".

Біля кожної праці в переліку літератури доступна кнопка «Додати до бібліографії». Скористайтеся нею – і ми автоматично оформимо бібліографічне посилання на обрану працю в потрібному вам стилі цитування: APA, MLA, «Гарвард», «Чикаго», «Ванкувер» тощо.

Також ви можете завантажити повний текст наукової публікації у форматі «.pdf» та прочитати онлайн анотацію до роботи, якщо відповідні параметри наявні в метаданих.

Статті в журналах з теми "Iron age – Turkey":

1

Grave, Peter, Lisa Kealhofer, Ben Marsh, Taciser Sivas, and Hakan Sivas. "Reconstructing Iron Age Community Dynamics in Eskişehir Province, Central Turkey." Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 19, no. 3 (July 9, 2011): 377–406. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10816-011-9119-y.

Повний текст джерела
Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.
2

Yilmaz, Hakan. "The skeletal remains from Babacan Village early Iron Age (Muradiye, Van, Turkey)." International Journal of Human Sciences 12, no. 1 (April 30, 2015): 1394. http://dx.doi.org/10.14687/ijhs.v12i1.3085.

Повний текст джерела
Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.
Анотація:
<p>Human skeletal remains were found from tomb dated to Early Iron Age in the Babacan Village in which is a town in the district of Muradiye (18km), Van province (105km), Turkey. Human bones were unearthed from tomb during an illegal excavation in the eastern province of Van’s Muradiye Babacan Village district. The bones were examined for age, sex and also presence of pathological. Furthermore,<em> </em>skeletal measurements and indices were calculated. A minimum of five individuals was defined from tomb dated to Early Iron Age. Skeletal remains in Babacan Village are composed of at least five individuals, including adult of both sexes (four male, one female). The average age of five individuals were calculated as &gt; 30 years. This age is similar to other Early Iron Age populations Van area. Assessing the paleopathological lesions were not observed on the skeletal remains Babacan Village burials. Moreover, another paleopathological observation was not found on the human bones, including trauma.</p>
3

Akin, Fatih, Ece Selma Solak, Cengizhan Kilicaslan, Saltuk Bugra Boke, and Sukru Arslan. "Iron Deficiency Anemia among Hospitalized Children in Konya, Turkey." Anemia 2013 (2013): 1–4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/514801.

Повний текст джерела
Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.
Анотація:
The aim of this study was to investigate the characteristics of our hospitalized patients with the diagnosis of iron deficiency anemia (IDA) and effects of the IDA prevention project of the Turkish Ministry of Health which was started in 2004. The recommended dose of prophylactic iron supplementation was 1-2 mg/kg/day. The files of 1519 patients who were hospitalized to Konya Education and Research Hospital Pediatrics Clinic were reviewed. A total of 50 patients consisting of 35 boys and 15 girls with the mean age of 16,59 ± 1,68 months were included into the study. The prevalence of IDA was 3.29% (boys: 4.23%, girls: 2.1%). Hgb and Hct of the patients >24 months were significantly higher than those of the patients with the age of 6–12 months. Iron supplementation receiving rates were very low. Of the 28 patients older than 12 months, only 44% of them had received a full course of iron supplementation for 8 months. In conclusion, although prophylactic iron supplementation lowered the prevalences of IDA, receiving rates of iron supplementation were not adequate. While IDA is still a public health problem, prophylactic approaches should be carried out more effectively.
4

Grave, Peter, Lisa Kealhofer, Pavol Hnila, Ben Marsh, Carolyn Aslan, Diane Thumm-Doğrayan, and Wendy Rigter. "Cultural dynamics and ceramic resource use at Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age Troy, northwestern Turkey." Journal of Archaeological Science 40, no. 4 (April 2013): 1760–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2012.10.027.

Повний текст джерела
Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.
5

Herrmann, Virginia R. "Urban organization under empire: Iron Age Sam’al (Zincirli, Turkey) from royal to provincial capital." Levant 49, no. 3 (September 2, 2017): 284–311. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2018.1453719.

Повний текст джерела
Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.
6

Erdem, A., A. Çilingiroğlu, A. Giakoumaki, M. Castanys, E. Kartsonaki, C. Fotakis, and D. Anglos. "Characterization of Iron age pottery from eastern Turkey by laser- induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS)." Journal of Archaeological Science 35, no. 9 (September 2008): 2486–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2008.03.019.

Повний текст джерела
Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.
7

Voigt, Mary M., and Robert C. Henrickson. "Formation of the Phrygian state: the Early Iron Age at Gordion." Anatolian Studies 50 (December 2000): 37–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3643013.

Повний текст джерела
Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.
Анотація:
A brief history of archaeological research at Gordion Piecing together documentary sources from areas to the east and west of Anatolia, historians agree that in the eighth century BC, central Anatolia was dominated by people who spoke an Indo-European language, Phrygian (Mellink 1991: 621; Muscarella 1995: 92 with refs). From historical sources we also know the location of the Phrygians' capital, Gordion: Quintus Curtius (Hist Alex III.1–2) states that the city lay on the Sangarios River ‘equally distant from the Pontic and Cilician Seas’. Using this description, Gustav and Augustus Körte travelled across Turkey more than a century ago looking for the physical remains of Gordion and Phrygia. They eventually focused on a mound lying adjacent to the Sangarios or modern Sakarya. The mound, now called Yassıhöyük, is large relative to others in the region, and lies in the proper geographical setting for ancient Gordion; a series of artificial mounds or tumuli scattered across nearby slopes provides additional evidence of the settlement's importance.
8

Dimova, Bela. "Archaeology in Macedonia and Thrace: Iron Age to Hellenistic, 2014–2019." Archaeological Reports 65 (November 2019): 127–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0570608419000073.

Повний текст джерела
Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.
Анотація:
This paper reviews archaeological publications and fieldwork related to Macedonia and Thrace of the past five years, covering the Early Iron Age to the Hellenistic period, with reference also to sites and projects in Bulgaria, North Macedonia and Turkey. Published syntheses reveal the priorities that have driven archaeological research to date (for example funerary monuments, ties to historical figures and narratives, pottery) and a need for more studies on other aspects of social history and archaeology, such as subsistence, crafts and households. Fieldwork at settlements has continued over the years, but few are being dug and published to current standards. A discussion is growing about the role and use of the countryside, and field surveys and excavations are providing new data on this. Fortified rural sites in Greece and Bulgaria may indicate that similar social processes were afoot, but full publication and the retrieval of relevant comparative data, especially faunal and botanical, are essential for a better understanding of potential differences.
9

Nesbitt, Mark, and G. D. Summers. "Some recent Discoveries of Millet (Panicum MiliaceumL. andSetaria italica(L.) P. Beauv.) at Excavations in Turkey and Iran." Anatolian Studies 38 (December 1988): 85–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3642844.

Повний текст джерела
Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.
Анотація:
Although a relatively unimportant crop in the Near East, millet has an especially interesting history that may throw some light on the cultural relationships of the Middle–Late Bronze Ages and the Iron Age. Thus the prompt, separate, publication of a large deposit of foxtail millet (Setaria italica(L.) P. Beauv.), recently identified from an Iron Age level at Tille Höyük, seems justified. This is the first find of the cereal in such large quantities—definitely as a crop—from the Near East or Greece. The rest of the plant remains from this level will be published in conjunction with the rich samples that are expected to be found in the massive Late Bronze Age burnt level at Tille. The opportunity is also taken in this paper to present other previously unpublished millet samples, from second millennium B.C. levels at Haftavan Tepe, northwestern Iran, and from Hellenistic, Roman and Medieval levels at Aşvan Kale, eastern Turkey.A full discussion of these criteria will be included in the first author's forthcoming publication of the Aşvan plant remains. Knörzer (1971) has published a useful key to millet seeds. Three genera of millets (all belonging to the tribePaniceaeof the grass family) have grains of the relatively wide, large embryoed type discussed here.
10

Luke, Christina, Christopher H. Roosevelt, Peter J. Cobb, and Çiler Çilingiroğlu. "Composing communities: Chalcolithic through Iron Age survey ceramics in the Marmara Lake basin, western Turkey." Journal of Field Archaeology 40, no. 4 (June 22, 2015): 428–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/2042458215y.0000000009.

Повний текст джерела
Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Дисертації з теми "Iron age – Turkey":

1

Chalazonitis, Ioannis. "The north-eastern Aegean, 1050-600 BC." Thesis, University of Oxford, 2017. https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:2f15b253-cc97-4e65-98cf-657a203bfc3e.

Повний текст джерела
Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.
Анотація:
This thesis aims to construct a historical narrative for the region of the north-eastern Aegean (NEA) during the Early Iron Age (1050-700 BCE) and the early Archaic period (7th century BCE) based primarily on archaeological evidence. Its goals are to investigate the most distinctive material culture elements for the studied period; to explore themes of continuity and connectivity between regions; to trace large- and smaller-scale population movements; to discuss how early communities perceived themselves and each other; and to investigate the social structure and organisation of these communities. Evidence from settlement sites, funerary contexts, and sanctuaries are presented in the first three chapters in that order. Following that, the final chapter presents the primary, overarching conclusions of the thesis, in four sub-chapters. Firstly, it is argued that the NEA was characterised by relative cultural continuity from the Late Bronze Age to well within the Archaic period: when new elements were introduced, they were, generally, integrated into earlier paradigms. Secondly, evidence is provided for an increase in connectivity and maritime traffic peaks during the late 8th century BCE; shortly afterwards, new population groups from the central and southern Aegean arrived in the NEA, and seem to have cohabited relatively peacefully with earlier populations. Thirdly, it is posited that there is little evidence for overarching NEA regional identities before the 6th century BCE: communities appear to have developed local identities, through association with specific sites and through references to the communal past in cult practice and funerary contexts. Finally, it is argued that social elites were markedly active in NEA communities of studied period: there is considerable evidence for socially exclusive groups, primarily in funerary and ritual contexts. The thesis concludes with a short chapter containing the author's closing remarks.
2

Karakaya, Doga [Verfasser], and Nicholas [Akademischer Betreuer] Conard. "Botanical Aspects of the Environment and Economy at Tell Tayinat from the Bronze to Iron Ages (ca. 2.200 – 600 BCE), in south-central Turkey / Doga Karakaya ; Betreuer: Nicholas Conard." Tübingen : Universitätsbibliothek Tübingen, 2020. http://d-nb.info/1206172924/34.

Повний текст джерела
Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.
3

Pintér, Farkas [Verfasser]. "Provenance study of the Early Iron Age knobbed ware in Troia, NW Turkey and the Balkans : petrographic and geochemical evidence / vorgelegt von Farkas Pintér." 2005. http://d-nb.info/976420309/34.

Повний текст джерела
Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.
4

Hay, Anne Persida. "Physical and metaphysical zones of transition : comparative themes in Hittite and Greek Karst landscapes in the Late Bronze and Early Iron ages." Diss., 2021. http://hdl.handle.net/10500/27463.

Повний текст джерела
Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.
Анотація:
English, Afrikaans and Zulu summaries
While there is increasing interest in the effect of landscape on ancient imagination, less attention has been paid to the impact of restless karst hydrology on ancient beliefs. By identifying shared themes, this study compares and contrasts the way Hittites and Aegean people in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages reshaped peripheral karst landscapes into physical and imagined transitional zones. Karst geology underpins much of the Aegean and Anatolian landscape, allowing subterranean zones to be visible and accessible above ground via caves, springs, sinking streams, sinkholes and other unusual natural formations. In both cultures, certain dynamic landscapes were considered to be sacred porous points where deities, daemons, heroes and mortals could transit between cosmic realms. Evidence suggests that Hittites and Aegean people interpreted dramatic karst landscapes as liminal thresholds and spaces situated between the world of humans and the world of deities. Part One investigates physical zones of transition via the karst ecosystems of rural sanctuaries. Part Two considers the creative interpretation in myth and iconography of karst phenomena into metaphysical zones of transition. The examples reveal the way in which Hittites and Aegean people built their concept of the sacred on the extraordinary characteristics of karst geology. Numinous karst landscapes provided validity and a familiar reference point for the creation of imagined worlds where mortal and divine could connect.
Vandag is daar toenemende belangstelling in die effek van die landskap op die verbeelding van die mensdom in die oudheid - maar minder aandag word bestee aan die impak van die rustelose karst landskap op die mens se gelowigheid in die oudheid. Deur die identifisering van sekere gemene temas, vergelyk hierdie verhandeling die manier waarop die Hetiete en die Egeïese volkere in die Laat Brons- en vroeë Ystertydperke die omliggende karstlandskap herskep het in fisiese en denkbeeldige oorgangszones. Die Egeïese en Anatoliese landskap bestaan grotendeels uit karst geologie, met tot gevolg dat ondergrondse zones bo die grond sigbaar en toeganklik is in die vorm van grotte, bronne, sinkgate en ander uitsonderlike natuurlike formasies. In beide bogenoemde kulture is sekere landskapstonele beskou as heilige en poreuse punte waar gode, demone, helde en sterwelinge tussen die kosmiese zones kon beweeg. Die getuienis van die tyd suggereer dat die Hetiete en die Egeïese volkere die dramatiese karst landskappe as grense of drempels tussen hulle wêreld en dié van die gode beskou het. Deel Een ondersoek die fisiese oorgangszones deur te kyk na die karst ecostelsels waarin plattelandse heiligdomme hulle bevind het. Deel Twee beskou die kreatiewe gebruik van karst verskynsels as voorstellings van metafisiese oorgangszones in die gekrewe bronne en ikonografie. Die geselekteerde voorbeelde dui aan die manier waarop die Hetiete en Egeïese volke hulle konsepte van heiligdom gebaseer het op die buitengewone verskynsels van karst geologie. Numineuse karst landskappe het hulle idees gestaaf en ‘n bekende verwysingspunt uitgemaak waar die menslike en die goddelike met mekaar in kontak kon kom.
Ngenkathi intshisekelo ekhulayo yethonya lokwakheka komhlaba emcabangweni wasendulo, kunakwe kancane umthelela we-karst hydrology engenazinkolelo ezinkolelweni zasendulo. Ngokukhomba izingqikithi okwabelwana ngazo, lo mqondo uqhathanisa futhi uqhathanise indlela amaHeti nabantu base-Aegean kweLate Bronze kanye ne-Early Iron Ages abuye abuye abumbe kabusha imigwaqo ye-karst yomngcele ibe yizingxenye zesikhashana zomzimba nezicatshangwe. I-Karst geology isekela kakhulu indawo yezwe i-Aegean ne-Anatolian evumela ukuthi izindawo ezingaphansi komhlaba zibonakale futhi zifinyeleleke ngaphezu komhlaba ngemigede, iziphethu, imifudlana ecwilayo, imigodi yokushona nokunye ukwakheka okungokwemvelo okungajwayelekile. Kuwo womabili amasiko izindawo ezithile eziguqukayo zazithathwa njengezindawo ezingcwele zokungena lapho onkulunkulu, amademoni, amaqhawe nabantu abafayo bengadlula phakathi kwezindawo zomhlaba. Ubufakazi bukhombisa ukuthi amaHeti nabantu base-Aegean bahumusha imidwebo emangazayo yekarst njengemikhawulo yemikhawulo nezikhala eziphakathi komhlaba wabantu nezwe lonkulunkulu. Ingxenye yokuqala iphenya izindawo eziguqukayo zomzimba ngokusebenzisa imvelo ye-karst yezindawo ezingcwele zasemakhaya. Ingxenye Yesibili ibheka ukutolikwa kokudala kunganekwane nakwizithonjana zezinto ze-karst kube izingxenye eziguqukayo zenguquko. Izibonelo ziveza indlela abantu abangamaHeti nabantu base- Aegean abawakha ngayo umqondo wabo ongcwele ngezimpawu ezingavamile ze-karst geology. Amathafa amahle we-karst ahlinzeka ngokusebenza kanye nephuzu elijwayelekile lesethenjwa lokwakhiwa kwamazwe acatshangelwe lapho abantu abafayo nabaphezulu bangaxhuma khona.
Biblical and Ancient Studies
M. A. (Ancient Near Eastern Studies)
5

Adair, Jennette. "Certain aspects of the Goddess in the Ancient Near East, 10,000-330 BCE." Thesis, 2008. http://hdl.handle.net/10500/2227.

Повний текст джерела
Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.
Анотація:
In the historical tapestry of the development of the Goddess, from 10,000 - 330 BCE one golden thread shines through. Despite the vicissitudes of differing status, she remained essentially the same, namely divine. She was continuously sought in the many mysteries, mystic ideologies and through the manifestations that she inspired. In all the countries of the Ancient Near East, the mother goddess was the life giving creatrix and regenerator of the world and the essence of the generating force that seeds new life. While her name may have altered in the various areas, along with that of her consort/lover/child, the myths and rituals which formed a major force in forming the ancient cultures would become manifest in a consciousness and a spiritual awareness.
Old Testament and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
M.A. (Language and Culture)

Книги з теми "Iron age – Turkey":

1

Rose, Charles Brian. The new chronology of Iron Age Gordion. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, 2012.

Знайти повний текст джерела
Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.
2

Redford, Scott, and Nina Ergin. Cities and citadels in Turkey: From the iron age to the Seljuks. Leuven: Peeters, 2013.

Знайти повний текст джерела
Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.
3

Draycott, Catherine M. Sculpture and inscriptions from the monumental entrance to the palatial complex at Kerkenes Dağ, Turkey. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2008.

Знайти повний текст джерела
Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.
4

Anatolian Iron Ages Colloquium (3rd 1990 Van). Anatolian Iron Ages 3: The proceedings of the Third Anatolian Iron Ages Colloquium held at Van, 6-12 August 1990 = Anadolu Demir Çağları 3 : III. Anadolu Demir Çağları Sempozyumu Bildirileri Van, 6-12 Ağustos 1990. London: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, 1994.

Знайти повний текст джерела
Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.
5

Mazzoni, Stefania, and Franca Pecchioli, eds. The Uşaklı Höyük Survey Project (2008-2012). Florence: Firenze University Press, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.36253/978-88-6655-902-3.

Повний текст джерела
Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.
Анотація:
This book presents the results of the survey conducted by the University of Florence, in the years 2008-2012, at the site and in the surrounding territory of U&#351;akl&#305; Höyük on the central Anatolian plateau in Turkey. Geological, geomorphological, topographic and geophysical research have provided new information and data relating to the environment and the settlement landscape, as well as producing new maps of the area and indicating the presence of large buried buildings on the site. Analysis of the rich corpus of pottery collected from the surface indicates that the site and its territory were continuously settled from the late Early Bronze Age through the Iron Age and down to the Late Roman and Byzantine periods. A few fragments of cuneiform tablets with Hittite texts, a sealing with two impressions of a stamp seal, and pottery stamps illustrate the importance of U&#351;akl&#305; Höyük and support the hypothesis of its identification with the town of Zippalanda, known from the Hittite sources as a seat of the cult of the Storm God.
6

Anatolian Iron Ages 4. British Institute of Archaeology at Ankra, 2000.

Знайти повний текст джерела
Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.
7

Anatolian Iron Ages Colloquium 2001 Van, Altan Cilingiroglu, and G. Darbyshire. Anatolian Iron Ages 5 (British Institute at Ankara Monographs). British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, 2005.

Знайти повний текст джерела
Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.
8

Guarducci, Guido. Nairi Lands: The Identity of the Local Communities of Eastern Anatolia, South Caucasus and Periphery During the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age. a Reassessment of the Material Culture and the Socio-Economic Landscape. Oxbow Books, Limited, 2019.

Знайти повний текст джерела
Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.
9

Cilingiroglu, A., and D. H. French. Anatolian Iron Ages 3 (British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara Monographs, 16). British Inst of Archaeology at, 1994.

Знайти повний текст джерела
Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.
10

Kamrava, Mehran. The Great Game in West Asia. Oxford University Press, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190673604.003.0001.

Повний текст джерела
Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.
Анотація:
This chapter examines the nature and consequences of the attention paid to the South Caucasus, or lack thereof as the case may be, by the United States, European Union and Russia. It then analyzes ongoing processes of state-building in each of the region’s three states and how the attendant domestic and international challenges of such processes have facilitated opportunities for Iran and Turkey to expand their commercial and strategic ties with each other. The chapter ends with an examination of relations between Turkey and Iran, uneasy neighbors that compete on several fronts but also cooperate out of necessity. It highlights the unfolding of a new game of geostrategic competition and rivalry by these two regional powers over the South Caucasus. Turkey’s favoured tools of competition and rivalry have been its soft power and pipeline politics, and Iran’s are commerce and natural resources.

Частини книг з теми "Iron age – Turkey":

1

Zerova, Marina D., Petr Janšta, Hassan Ghahari, Gary A. P. Gibson, Mikdat Doğanlar, Irinel E. Popescu, and Victor N. Fursov. "Family Megastigmidae Thomson, 1876." In Chalcidoidea of Iran (Insecta: Hymenoptera), 261–68. Wallingford: CABI, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1079/9781789248463.0261.

Повний текст джерела
Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.
Анотація:
Abstract This chapter provides a checklist for the family Megastigmidae. It provides information on species diversity, host records, distribution records by province in Iran, as well as world distribution. Comparison of the megastigmid fauna of Iran with adjacent countries indicates that the faunas of Turkey (20 species) and Russia (17 species) are both more diverse than Iran (12 species), followed by Kazakhstan (six species), Armenia (five species), Turkmenistan (three species) and Afghanistan, Azerbaijan and Iraq (each with one species); no species have been recorded from Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, 17 species were recorded from the former USSR. Turkey shares eight known species with Iran, followed by Russia (seven species), Armenia (four species), Turkmenistan (three species) and Afghanistan, Azerbaijan and Iraq (each with one species shared).
2

Zerova, Marina D., Petr Janšta, Hassan Ghahari, Gary A. P. Gibson, Mikdat Doğanlar, Irinel E. Popescu, and Victor N. Fursov. "Family Megastigmidae Thomson, 1876." In Chalcidoidea of Iran (Insecta: Hymenoptera), 261–68. Wallingford: CABI, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1079/9781789248463.0012.

Повний текст джерела
Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.
Анотація:
Abstract This chapter provides a checklist for the family Megastigmidae. It provides information on species diversity, host records, distribution records by province in Iran, as well as world distribution. Comparison of the megastigmid fauna of Iran with adjacent countries indicates that the faunas of Turkey (20 species) and Russia (17 species) are both more diverse than Iran (12 species), followed by Kazakhstan (six species), Armenia (five species), Turkmenistan (three species) and Afghanistan, Azerbaijan and Iraq (each with one species); no species have been recorded from Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, 17 species were recorded from the former USSR. Turkey shares eight known species with Iran, followed by Russia (seven species), Armenia (four species), Turkmenistan (three species) and Afghanistan, Azerbaijan and Iraq (each with one species shared).
3

Schmid-Egger, Christian, Gary A. P. Gibson, and Hassan Ghahari. "Family Leucospidae Walker, 1834." In Chalcidoidea of Iran (Insecta: Hymenoptera), 255–60. Wallingford: CABI, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1079/9781789248463.0255.

Повний текст джерела
Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.
Анотація:
Abstract This chapter provides a checklist for the family Leucospidae. It provides information on species diversity, host records, distribution records by province in Iran, as well as world distribution. Comparison of the leucospid fauna of Iran (six species) with adjacent countries shows that it has the same number of species as Turkey, followed by Russia (five species), United Arab Emirates (four species), Afghanistan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan (each with three species), Armenia, Azerbaijan and Pakistan (each with two species) and Saudi Arabia (one species); no species have been recorded from Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman or Qatar. Furthermore, six species were recorded from the former USSR and if the exact localities of these species were known then the number of species from Russia and Middle Asian countries adjacent to Iran would be increased. All the species recorded from Iran are shared with Turkey, whereas five species are shared with Russia, three species with Afghanistan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, and two species with Armenia, Azerbaijan and Pakistan. Four species are recorded from United Arab Emirates, none of which are yet known from Iran, but Leucospis elegans and L. vanharteni might be expected in southern Iran.
4

Schmid-Egger, Christian, Gary A. P. Gibson, and Hassan Ghahari. "Family Leucospidae Walker, 1834." In Chalcidoidea of Iran (Insecta: Hymenoptera), 255–60. Wallingford: CABI, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1079/9781789248463.0011.

Повний текст джерела
Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.
Анотація:
Abstract This chapter provides a checklist for the family Leucospidae. It provides information on species diversity, host records, distribution records by province in Iran, as well as world distribution. Comparison of the leucospid fauna of Iran (six species) with adjacent countries shows that it has the same number of species as Turkey, followed by Russia (five species), United Arab Emirates (four species), Afghanistan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan (each with three species), Armenia, Azerbaijan and Pakistan (each with two species) and Saudi Arabia (one species); no species have been recorded from Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman or Qatar. Furthermore, six species were recorded from the former USSR and if the exact localities of these species were known then the number of species from Russia and Middle Asian countries adjacent to Iran would be increased. All the species recorded from Iran are shared with Turkey, whereas five species are shared with Russia, three species with Afghanistan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, and two species with Armenia, Azerbaijan and Pakistan. Four species are recorded from United Arab Emirates, none of which are yet known from Iran, but Leucospis elegans and L. vanharteni might be expected in southern Iran.
5

Guerrieri, Emilio, Mohammad Hayat, Hassan Ghahari, Vladimir A. Trjapitzin, Gennaro Viggiani, and Gary A. P. Gibson. "Family Encyrtidae Walker, 1837." In Chalcidoidea of Iran (Insecta: Hymenoptera), 93–152. Wallingford: CABI, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1079/9781789248463.0093.

Повний текст джерела
Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.
Анотація:
Abstract Species from the family Encyrtidae are all endoparasitoids and some are polyembryonic. Many species have been used successfully in various biological control programmes in different regions of the world. This chapter provides a checklist for the family Encyrtidae. It provides information on species diversity, host records, distribution records by province in Iran, as well as world distribution. Comparison of the encyrtid fauna of Iran with adjacent countries indicates that the faunas of Russia (492 species) and Turkmenistan (246 species) are more diverse than Iran (236 species), followed by Armenia (174 species), Turkey (165 species), Azerbaijan (159 species), Kazakhstan (148 species), Pakistan (62 species), Saudi Arabia (47 species), Afghanistan (32 species), Iraq (seven species), United Arab Emirates (three species), Oman (two species), Kuwait (one species) and Bahrain and Qatar (no species). Among the adjacent countries, Russia shares 129 known species with Iran, followed by Azerbaijan (105 species), Turkey (98 species), Armenia (91 species), Turkmenistan (67 species), Kazakhstan (64 species), Pakistan (27 species), Afghanistan (17 species), Saudi Arabia (16 species), Iraq (five species), United Arab Emirates (three species) and Oman (two species).
6

Guerrieri, Emilio, Mohammad Hayat, Hassan Ghahari, Vladimir A. Trjapitzin, Gennaro Viggiani, and Gary A. P. Gibson. "Family Encyrtidae Walker, 1837." In Chalcidoidea of Iran (Insecta: Hymenoptera), 93–152. Wallingford: CABI, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1079/9781789248463.0005.

Повний текст джерела
Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.
Анотація:
Abstract Species from the family Encyrtidae are all endoparasitoids and some are polyembryonic. Many species have been used successfully in various biological control programmes in different regions of the world. This chapter provides a checklist for the family Encyrtidae. It provides information on species diversity, host records, distribution records by province in Iran, as well as world distribution. Comparison of the encyrtid fauna of Iran with adjacent countries indicates that the faunas of Russia (492 species) and Turkmenistan (246 species) are more diverse than Iran (236 species), followed by Armenia (174 species), Turkey (165 species), Azerbaijan (159 species), Kazakhstan (148 species), Pakistan (62 species), Saudi Arabia (47 species), Afghanistan (32 species), Iraq (seven species), United Arab Emirates (three species), Oman (two species), Kuwait (one species) and Bahrain and Qatar (no species). Among the adjacent countries, Russia shares 129 known species with Iran, followed by Azerbaijan (105 species), Turkey (98 species), Armenia (91 species), Turkmenistan (67 species), Kazakhstan (64 species), Pakistan (27 species), Afghanistan (17 species), Saudi Arabia (16 species), Iraq (five species), United Arab Emirates (three species) and Oman (two species).
7

Ghahari, Hassan, Gary A. P. Gibson, and Gennaro Viggiani. "Diversity of Iranian Chalcidoidea." In Chalcidoidea of Iran (Insecta: Hymenoptera), 399–410. Wallingford: CABI, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1079/9781789248463.0399.

Повний текст джерела
Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.
Анотація:
Abstract This chapter tabulates the species diversity of Iranian Chalcidoidea by family, the species newly exclude from Iran, the species presently considered as endemic to Iran and the number of species of each family that are known from each of the 31 provinces that comprise Iran. It also tabulates the fauna of Iran compared with those of 15 adjacent countries having land and sea borders with Iran: Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Turkmenistan and United Arab Emirates, as well as the former USSR. Finally, comments are provided concerning the importance of accurate taxonomy and species checklists to help resolve economic issues resulting from agricultural and forestry pest insects.
8

Ghahari, Hassan, Gary A. P. Gibson, and Gennaro Viggiani. "Diversity of Iranian Chalcidoidea." In Chalcidoidea of Iran (Insecta: Hymenoptera), 399–410. Wallingford: CABI, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1079/9781789248463.0021a.

Повний текст джерела
Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.
Анотація:
Abstract This chapter tabulates the species diversity of Iranian Chalcidoidea by family, the species newly exclude from Iran, the species presently considered as endemic to Iran and the number of species of each family that are known from each of the 31 provinces that comprise Iran. It also tabulates the fauna of Iran compared with those of 15 adjacent countries having land and sea borders with Iran: Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Turkmenistan and United Arab Emirates, as well as the former USSR. Finally, comments are provided concerning the importance of accurate taxonomy and species checklists to help resolve economic issues resulting from agricultural and forestry pest insects.
9

Yefremova, Zoya A., Gennaro Viggiani, Hassan Ghahari, Gary A. P. Gibson, and Mikdat Doğanlar. "Family Eulophidae Westwood, 1829." In Chalcidoidea of Iran (Insecta: Hymenoptera), 161–210. Wallingford: CABI, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1079/9781789248463.0161.

Повний текст джерела
Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.
Анотація:
Abstract This chapter provides a checklist for the family Eulophidae. It provides information on species diversity, host records, distribution records by province in Iran, as well as world distribution. Comparison of the eulophid fauna of Iran with adjacent countries indicates that the faunas of Russia (666 species) and Turkey (246 species) are more diverse than Iran (236 species), followed by Turkmenistan (70 species), Kazakhstan (57 species), Pakistan (44 species), Azerbaijan (34 species), United Arab Emirates (31 species), Armenia (23 species), Iraq (10 species), Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia (both with eight species) and Oman (six species); no species have so far been reported from Bahrain, Kuwait or Qatar. The much larger number of eulophid species reported from Russia likely correlates with not only its large land area but also its history of taxonomic research on Eulophidae in the country. Russia shares 147 known species with Iran, followed by Turkey (133 species), Azerbaijan (22 species), Turkmenistan (21 species), Armenia and Pakistan (both with 20 species), United Arab Emirates (13 species), Iraq (10 species), Afghanistan (seven species), Saudi Arabia (four species) and Oman (two species).
10

Yefremova, Zoya A., Gennaro Viggiani, Hassan Ghahari, Gary A. P. Gibson, and Mikdat Doğanlar. "Family Eulophidae Westwood, 1829." In Chalcidoidea of Iran (Insecta: Hymenoptera), 161–210. Wallingford: CABI, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1079/9781789248463.0008.

Повний текст джерела
Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.
Анотація:
Abstract This chapter provides a checklist for the family Eulophidae. It provides information on species diversity, host records, distribution records by province in Iran, as well as world distribution. Comparison of the eulophid fauna of Iran with adjacent countries indicates that the faunas of Russia (666 species) and Turkey (246 species) are more diverse than Iran (236 species), followed by Turkmenistan (70 species), Kazakhstan (57 species), Pakistan (44 species), Azerbaijan (34 species), United Arab Emirates (31 species), Armenia (23 species), Iraq (10 species), Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia (both with eight species) and Oman (six species); no species have so far been reported from Bahrain, Kuwait or Qatar. The much larger number of eulophid species reported from Russia likely correlates with not only its large land area but also its history of taxonomic research on Eulophidae in the country. Russia shares 147 known species with Iran, followed by Turkey (133 species), Azerbaijan (22 species), Turkmenistan (21 species), Armenia and Pakistan (both with 20 species), United Arab Emirates (13 species), Iraq (10 species), Afghanistan (seven species), Saudi Arabia (four species) and Oman (two species).

До бібліографії