This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2008)

The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (December 2010)

Devolution is the statutory granting of powers from the central government of a sovereign state to government at a subnational level, such as a regional, local, or state level. Devolution can be mainly financial, e.g. giving areas a budget which was formerly administered by central government. However, the power to make legislation relevant to the area may also be granted.

Devolution differs from federalism in that the devolved powers of the subnational authority may be temporary and ultimately reside in central government, thus the state remains, de jure unitary. Legislation creating devolved parliaments or assemblies can be repealed or amended by central government in the same way as any statute.

Federal systems, or federacies, differ in that state or provincial government is guaranteed in the constitution. Australia, Canada, India, Mexico and the United States have federal systems, and have constitutions (as do some of their constituent states or provinces). They also have territories, with less power and authority than a state or province.

Australia[link]

The Australian Capital Territory refused self-government in a 1978 referendum, but was given limited self-government by a House of Assembly from 1979, and a Legislative Assembly with wider powers in 1988.

The Northern Territory of Australia refused statehood in a 1998 referendum. The rejection was a surprise to both the Australian and Northern Territory governments.

Territory legislation can be disallowed by the Commonwealth Parliament in Canberra, with one notable example being the NT's short lived voluntary euthanasia legislation.

Canada[link]

Although Canada is a federal state, a large portion of its land mass in the North is under the legislative jurisdiction of the federal government. This has been the case since 1870. In 1870, the Rupert’s Land and North-Western Territory Order effected the admission of Rupert’s Land and the North-Western Territory to Canada, pursuant to section 146 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Rupert’s Land Act, 1868. The Manitoba Act, 1870, which created Manitoba out of part of Rupert’s Land, also designated the remaining territories the Northwest Territories (NWT), over which Parliament was to exercise full legislative authority under the Constitution Act, 1871.

Since the 1970s, the federal government has been transferring its decision-making powers to northern governments. This means greater local control and accountability by northerners for decisions central to the future of the territories. Yukon was carved from the Northwest Territories in 1898 but it remained a federal territory. Subsequently, in 1905, the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan were created from the Northwest Territories. Other portions of Rupert's Land were added to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, taking the provinces from a narrow band around the St. Lawrence and lower Great Lakes northward. District of Ungava was a regional administrative district of Canada's Northwest Territories from 1895 to 1912. The continental areas of the District of Ungava were transferred by the Parliament of Canada with the adoption of the Quebec Boundary Extension Act, 1898 and the Quebec Boundaries Extension Act, 1912. The interior of Labrador which was believed part of Ungava was settled in 1927 by the British Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which ruled in favour of Newfoundland.^[1]

In 1999, the federal government created Nunavut pursuant to a land claim agreement reached with Inuit, the indigenous people of Canada’s Eastern Arctic. The offshore islands to the west and north of Quebec remained part of the Northwest Territories until the creation of Nunavut in 1999.

Since that time, the federal government has slowly devolved legislative jurisdiction to the territories. Enabling the territories to become more self-sufficient and prosperous and to play a stronger role in the Canadian federation is considered a key component to development in Canada’s North. Among the three territories, devolution is most advanced in Yukon.

Northwest Territories[link]

The Northwest Territories were governed from Ottawa from 1870 until the 1970s, except for the brief period between 1898 and 1905 when it was governed by an elected assembly. The Carruthers Commission was established in April 1963 by the government of Lester B. Pearson. The three-man membership was appointed in 1965. It conducted surveys of opinion in the NWT in 1965 and 1966 and reported in 1966. Major recommendations included that the seat of government of the territories should be located in the territories. Yellowknife was selected as the territorial capital as a result. Transfer of many responsibilities from the federal government to that of the territories was recommended and carried out. This included responsibility for education, small business, public works, social services and local government. Since the report, the transfer of the Government of Northwest Territories has taken over responsibilities for several other programs and services including the delivery of health care, administration of airports and forestry management. The legislative jurisdiction of the territorial legislature is set out in section 16 of the Northwest Territories Act.

In the past 30 years, the transfer of responsibilities to the Government of Northwest Territories has taken place for several programs and services including the delivery of health care, social services, education, administration of airports and forestry management.

Now, the Government of Canada is negotiating the transfer of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development's remaining provincial-type responsibilities in the NWT. These include the legislative powers, programs and responsibilities for land and resources associated with the department's Northern Affairs Program (NAP) with respect to:

• powers to develop, conserve, manage and regulate of surface and subsurface natural resources in the NWT for mining and minerals (including oil and gas) administration, water management, land management and environmental management;
• powers to control and administer public land with the right to use, sell or otherwise dispose of such land; and
• powers to levy and collect resource royalties and other revenues from natural resources.

The Government of the Northwest Territories, the Aboriginal Summit and the Government of Canada have each appointed a Chief Negotiator to work on devolution. A Framework Agreement was concluded in 2004. The target date for the completion of devolution talks for the NWT was March 2007. However, stumbling blocks associated with the transfer of current federal employees to the territorial government, and the unresolved issue of how much money the Northwest Territories will receive for its resources has delayed the conclusion of a devolution agreement for the NWT.

Nunavut[link]

In 1966, the federal government established the Carrothers Commission to look at the issue of government in the North. After extensive study and consultation, the Commission concluded that division of the NWT was probably both advisable and inevitable. There was a recognition that Northerners wanted to run their own affairs and must be given the opportunity to do so. At the same time, however, it noted that governmental reform was required before this could happen. It recommended the establishment of a new system of representative government. As a result, in the late 1960s and in the 1970s, the federal government gradually created electoral constituencies and transferred many federally run programs to the territorial government. Northerners took on more and more responsibility for the day-to-day running of their own affairs. In 1982, a plebiscite was held in the NWT asking the question, "Do you think the NWT should be divided?" Fifty-three percent of eligible voters participated in the plebiscite, with 56.4 percent of them voting "yes." Voter turnout and support for division was particularly strong in the Eastern Arctic. The Inuit population of the eastern section of the territory had become increasingly receptive of the idea of self-government. It was viewed as the best way to promote and protect their culture and traditions and address their unique regional concerns.

Both the NWT Legislative Assembly and the federal government accepted the idea of dividing the territory. The idea was viewed as an important step towards enabling the Inuit, and other residents of the Eastern Arctic, to take charge of their own destiny. There were some reservations, however. Before action could be taken, certain practical considerations had to be addressed. First of all, outstanding land claims had to be settled. Second, all parties had to agree on a new boundary. Finally, all parties had to agree on the division of powers between territorial, regional and local levels of government. The various governments and native groups worked closely together to realize these goals. The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement was ratified by the Inuit in November 1992, signed by the Prime Minister of Canada on May 25, 1993, and passed by the Canadian Parliament in June of the same year. It was the largest native land claim settlement in Canadian history. It gave the Inuit title over 350,000 square kilometres of land. It also gave the Inuit capital transfers from the federal government of over $1.1 billion over the next 14 years. This money will be held in trust with the interest to be used in a variety of different projects, including financing for regional businesses and scholarships for students. The Inuit also gained a share of resource royalties, hunting rights and a greater role in managing the land and protecting the environment. The land claims agreement also committed the Government of Canada to recommend to Parliament legislation to create a new territory in the eastern part of the Northwest Territories.

While negotiations on a land claims settlement progressed, work was also taking place to determine potential jurisdictional boundaries for a new Eastern Territory. A proposal was presented to all NWT voters in a May 1992 plebiscite. Of those voting, 54 percent supported the proposed boundary. The Government of the Northwest Territories, the Tungavik Federation of Nunavut (the Inuit claims organization) and the federal government formally adopted the boundary for division in the Nunavut Political Accord. The final piece of the equation fit into place on June 10, 1993, when the Nunavut Act received Royal Assent. It officially established the territory of Nunavut and provided a legal framework for its government. It fixed April 1, 1999, as the day on which the new territory would come into existence.

The Government of Nunavut is currently negotiating with the Government of Canada on a devolution agreement. Nunavut Tunngavik, the organization of Inuit of Nunavut, is also a participant to negotiations to ensure that Inuit interests are represented.

Devolution over natural resources to the Government of Nunavut moved forward with the appointment of a Ministerial Representative for Nunavut Devolution. The Representative has held meetings with interested parties including the Boards established under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA), territorial and federal government departments in order to determine if devolution will occur and if so the future mandate of devolution. The Government of Nunavut and Nunavut Tunngavik have appointed negotiators.

Yukon[link]

In 1896 gold was discovered in the Yukon beginning of what is often considered the world's greatest gold rush which saw the population of the Yukon grow rapidly. Indeed, by 1898, Dawson grew into the largest Canadian city west of Winnipeg, with a population of 40,000. In response, the Canadian government officially established the Yukon Territory in 1898. The North-West Mounted Police were sent in to ensure Canadian jurisdiction and The Yukon Act provided for a commissioner to administer the territory. The 1898 statute granted the Commissioner in Council “the same powers to make ordinances... as are possessed by the Lieutenant Governor of the North-west Territories, acting by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly thereof.” In 1908, amendments to the Yukon Act transformed the Council into an elected body.

Over time the territorial government exercised expanded functions. Relevant developments include the following:

By the mid-1960s, schools, public works, welfare and various other matters of a local nature had come under territorial administration.

Increased authority of elected Council members over the ensuing period contributed to significant changes in the Yukon Commissioner’s role. In 1979, instructions from the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Minister) directed the Commissioner to allow elected members and the Executive Council to make important policy decisions, specifying that his actions should normally be based on the advice and taken with the consent of the elected Executive Council.

Like in the Northwest Territories, federal responsibilities were transferred to the Yukon government in the 1980s. In 1988, the Minister and the Yukon Government Leader signed a Memorandum of Understanding committing the parties to smooth the progress of devolution of remaining province-like responsibilities to the Yukon Government. Responsibilities transferred since then include fisheries, mine safety, intra-territorial roads, hospitals and community health care, oil and gas and, most recently, natural resources.

Discussion to transfer land and resource management responsibilities to the Yukon Government began in 1996, followed by a formal federal devolution proposal to the Yukon Government in January 1997. In September 1998, a Devolution Protocol Accord to guide devolution negotiations was signed. On August 28, 2001, a final draft of the Devolution Transfer Agreement was completed for consideration. The Yukon Devolution transfer Agreement was concluded on October 29, 2001, with the Government of the Yukon enabling the transfer of remaining province-like responsibilities for land, water and resource management to the Government of the Yukon on April 1, 2003.

Mexico[link]

The Federal District[link]

All constituent states of Mexico are fully autonomous and comprise a federation. However, the Federal District, originally integrated by Mexico City and other municipalities, was created in 1824 to be the capital of the federation. As such, it was governed directly by the central or federal government and the president of Mexico appointed its governor or executive regent. Even though the municipalities within the Federal District were autonomous, their powers were limited. In 1928, these municipalities were abolished and transformed into non-autonomous delegaciones or boroughs and a "Central Department", later renamed as Mexico City. In 1970 this department was split into four new delegaciones, and Mexico City was constitutionally defined to be synonymous and coterminous with the entire Federal District.^[2] (As such, the boroughs of the Federal District are boroughs of Mexico City).

In the 1980s, the citizens of the Federal District, being the most populated federal entity in Mexico, began to demand for home rule; a devolution of autonomy in order to directly elect their head of government and to set up a Legislative Assembly. In 1987, an Assembly of Representatives was created, by constitutional decree, whose members were elected by popular vote. The devolution of the executive power was not granted until 1997 when the first head government was elected by popular vote. Finally, in 2000, power was devolved to the delegaciones, though limited: residents can now elect their own "heads of borough government" (jefes delegacionales, in Spanish), but the delegaciones do not have regulatory powers and are not constituted by a board of trustees, like the municipalities of the constituent states.

The autonomy, or home rule, of the Federal District, was granted by the federal government, which in principle, has the right to remove it. The president of Mexico still holds the final word in some decisions (e.g. he must approve some posts), and the Congress of the Union reviews the budget of the Federal District and sets the limit to its debt.^[3]

Some left-wing groups and political parties have advocated, since the 1980s, for a full devolution of powers by transforming the Federal District into the thirty-second constituent state of the Federation (with the proposed name of "State of the Valley of Mexico", to be distinguished from the state of México. Another proposed name is "State of the Anahuac").

Indigenous peoples[link]

In a recent amendment to the Constitution of Mexico, the country was defined as a "pluricultural nation" originally founded upon the "indigenous peoples".^[4] They are granted "free-determination" to choose the social, economical, cultural and political organization for which they are to elect representatives democratically in whatever manner they see fit, traditionally or otherwise, as long as women have the same opportunities to participate in their social and political life. There are, however, no prescribed limits to their territories, and they are still under the jurisdiction of the municipalities and states in which they are located; the indigenous peoples can elect representatives before the municipal councils. In practice, they are allowed to have an autonomous form of self-government, but they are still subject to the rights and responsibilities set forth by the federal constitution and the constitution of the states in which they are located.

France[link]

In the late 1980s a process of decentralisation was undertaken by the French government. Initially regions were created and elected regional assemblies set up. Together with the departmental councils these bodies have responsibility for infrastructure spending and maintenance (Schools and highways) and certain social spending. They collect revenues through property taxes and various other taxes. In addition a large part of spending is provided by direct grants to such authorities.

Local government spending in France represents 19% (189 billion euros) of total government spending.

Spain[link]

The Spanish Constitution of 1978 granted autonomy to the nationalities and regions of which the Kingdom of Spain is composed. (See also autonomous communities and cities of Spain)

Under the "system of autonomies" (Spanish: Estado de las Autonomías), Spain has been quoted to be "remarkable for the extent of the powers peacefully devolved over the past 30 years"^[5] and "an extraordinarily decentralised country", with the central government accounting for just 18% of public spending; the regional governments 38%, the local councils 13% and the social-security system the rest.^[6]

United Kingdom[link]

In the United Kingdom, devolved government was created following simple majority referenda in Wales and Scotland in September 1997. In 1998 the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales and Northern Ireland Assembly were established by law. England was left un-devolved. In addition to the newly established assemblies of Wales and Scotland much spending is devolved to the councils and shires of the United Kingdom. In addition to taxes collected locally the government provides grants for services such as the police, fire service and ambulance service which are under the authority of local elected government.

Local government spending in 2010 represented 25.6% of total government spending or £173 billion.^[7]

United States[link]

District of Columbia[link]

In the United States, the District of Columbia offers an illustration of devolved government. The District is separate from any state, and has its own elected government; in many ways, on a day-to-day basis, it operates much like another state, with its own laws, court system, Department of Motor Vehicles, public university, and so on. However, the governments of the 50 states have a broad range of powers reserved to them by the U.S. Constitution, and most of their laws cannot be voided by any act of U.S. federal government. The District of Columbia, by contrast, is constitutionally under the sole control of the United States Congress, which created the current District government by statute. Any law passed by the District legislature can be nullified by Congressional action, and indeed the District government could be significantly altered or eliminated entirely by a simple majority vote in Congress.

The states[link]

In the United States only the federal government, state governments, and federally recognized American Indian tribal nations are recognized by the United States Constitution, so local governments are subdivisions of states. Theoretically, a state could abolish all local governments within its borders.

Local governments such as municipalities, counties, parishes, boroughs, school districts, and other types of local government and political subdivision entities are devolved. They are established, regulated, and subject to governance by the constitutions or laws of the state in which they reside. Many local governments are given some degree of home rule, depending on the state. U.S. state legislatures, in most cases, have the power to change laws that affect local government structures. In some states, the governor may also have power over local government affairs.

Movements calling for devolution[link]

Movements calling for devolution in other areas also exist. There is a strong movement for devolution to Cornwall, with a Cornish Constitutional Convention being set up in 2001. Also in the United Kingdom, the Campaign for an English Parliament (CEP) was formed in 1998 as a direct consequence of Scotland and Wales being given devolution referenda and England being left out. The CEP is largely responsible for putting English devolution on the political and social agenda. There is a regional devolution movement in Yorkshire as well as historic English Regions such as Wessex and Mercia although these groups command very little support and are very much on the fringe of local politics.

In Northern Italy, there is a political movement led by the Lega Nord, for the home rule of Padania. In France, there are groups calling for devolution or full independence for Occitania, the Basque Country, Alsace, and Brittany.

List of unitary states with devolution[link]

Other meanings of the term devolution[link]

In some hierarchical churches, especially Anglican churches including the Church of England, devolution is a bishop's appointment of a person to a benefice (e.g. a parish) when the ordinary patron or collator (i.e. the person or body with the right to appoint) has failed to do so, either because an improper candidate has been nominated or because no candidate could be found

Cardinal Albino Luciani, also known as Pope John Paul I, was the author of initiatives such as the devolution of one per cent of each church's entries for the poor churches in the Developing World.

Under United States estate tax provision, "devolution" may occur when a deceased obtains "incidents of ownership" under the Estate Tax Regulation 20.2042-1(c)2 in a fiduciary capacity from an independent transaction creating a trust for benefit of another party. See IRC 2042 & Revenue Ruling 84-179 example.

See also[link]

• Decentralisation
• Federalism in China; tiao-kuai
• Home rule
• Principle of conferral
• Royal Commission on the Constitution (United Kingdom)
• Scotland Act 2012
• Subsidiarity
• West Lothian question

Notes[link]

External links[link]

Look up devolution in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

• Economic and Social Research Council Devolution and Constitutional Change research programme
• An Article from the BBC describing the transfer of powers from the UK Parliament to the Welsh Assembly

Michael A. Cremo
Michael A. Cremo
Born	(1948-07-15) July 15, 1948 (age 63) Schenectady, New York
Residence	Los Angeles, CA
Nationality	American
Occupation	Author, editor
Religion	Gaudiya Vaishnavism
Website
www.MCremo.com

Michael A. Cremo (born July 15, 1948, Schenectady, New York), also known as Drutakarma Dasa, is an American Hindu creationist whose work argues that humans have lived on the earth for billions of years.^[1] Cremo's book, Forbidden Archeology, has attracted attention from Hindu creationists and paranormalists, but has been criticized by many mainstream scholars for his unorthodox views on archeology.^[2][3] Scholars of the mainstream archaeological and paleoanthropological communities have described his work as pseudoscience.^[4][5] Cremo identifies himself as a "Vedic creationist."^[6][7]

Early life and education[link]

Cremo's father, Salvatore Cremo, was a United States military intelligence officer. Michael Cremo lived with his family in Germany, where he went to high school. They spent several summers traveling throughout Europe. He attended George Washington University from 1966 to 1968, then served in the United States Navy.

Religious views[link]

Cremo is a member of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness and the Bhaktivedanta Institute. He has written several books and articles about Hindu spirituality under the name Drutakarma Dasa. He has also been a contributing editor to the magazine Back to Godhead and a bhakti yoga teacher. Cremo told Contemporary Authors that he decided to devote his life to Krishna in the early 1970s, after receiving a copy of the Bhagavad Gita at a Grateful Dead concert. In the end of 1990s he authored a paper on the official ISKCON statement on capital punishment.^[8] His work on "Puranic Time and the Archaeological Record" was published in ISKCON Communications Journal^[9] and Time and Archaeology.^[10]

[edit] Forbidden Archeology

Cremo's book Forbidden Archeology has attracted attention from some mainstream scholars as well as Hindu creationists and paranormalists. Most scholars of mainstream archeology and paleoanthropology have described this work as pseudoscience, but even his critics have acknowledged some positive aspects of the book.

Anthropologist Kenneth L. Feder wrote in his review of Forbidden Archeology: "While decidedly antievolutionary in perspective, this work is not the ordinary variety of antievolutionism in form, content, or style. In distinction to the usual brand of such writing, the authors use original sources and the book is well written. Further, the overall tone of the work is far superior to that exhibited in ordinary creationist literature." ^[11]

Archaeologist Tim Murray wrote in his review of Forbidden Archeology: "I have no doubt that there will be some who will read this book and profit from it. Certainly it provides the historian of archeology with a useful compendium of case studies in the history and sociology of scientific knowledge, which can be used to foster debate within archaeology about how to describe the epistemology of one's discipline." He also commented on the similarities in argument with those of Christian Creationists: "This is a piece of ‘Creation Science’ which, while not based on the need to promote a Christian alternative, manifests many of the same types of argument: first, an attempt to characterize the opposition as motivated by the need to preserve their view of the world rather than a desire to practice unfettered inquiry; secondly, to explain the currently marginal position of your alternative as being the result of prejudice, conspiracy and manipulation rather than of any fault of the theory itself; thirdly, to present the opposition (in this case mainstream palaeoanthropology and quarternary [sic] archaeology) as being united as a ‘secret college’ to manipulate the public mind and to exclude non-professionals from being able to control science for the benefit of all." ^[12]

Cremo has presented his findings from the book at mainstream conferences of archeology and history of science, at leading scientific institutions, such as the Royal Institution in London, and some his findings have been published in mainstream academic publications. For example, his paper "Puranic Time and the Archeological Record", presented at the 1994 meeting of the World Archaeological Congress, appeared in a peer-reviewed conference proceedings volume edited by archeologist Tim Murray and published by Routledge, a major scientific publisher. The paper incorporates extensive evidence from Cremo's book Forbidden Archeology.^{[13][improper synthesis?]} Cremo's paper "The Discoveries of Carlos Ribeiro", which he presented at a meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists, was published in a peer-reviewed archeological journal.^{[14][improper synthesis?]}

In 1993, Cremo co-wrote Forbidden Archeology with Richard L. Thompson. The book claims that humans have lived on the earth for millions, or billions, of years, and that the scientific establishment has suppressed the fossil evidence of extreme human antiquity.^[15] He speaks about a knowledge filter (confirmation bias) as the cause of this suppression.

Cremo continued this theme in Forbidden Archeology's Impact (1998) and Human Devolution (2003). Cremo identifies as a "Vedic archeologist", since he believes his findings support the story of humanity described in the Vedas.^[16] The Indian magazine Frontline called Cremo and Thompson "the intellectual force driving Vedic creationism in America".^[17]

Cremo's work has garnered interest from Hindu creationists, paranormalists and theosophists.^[18] But it has also attracted attention from mainstream scholars. Historians of science Jo Wodak and David Oldroyd published a 23-page review article about Forbidden Archaeology in Social Studies of Science, in which they wrote: "It must be acknowledged that Forbidden Archeology brings to attention many interesting issues that have not received much consideration from historians; and the authors' detailed examination of the early literature is certainly stimulating and raises questions of considerable interest, both historically and from the perspective of practitioners of sociology of scientific knowledge."^[19]

Cremo's books provided much of the content for the widely criticized 1996 NBC special The Mysterious Origins of Man.^[20]

Forbidden Archeology has been criticized for failing to test simpler hypotheses before proceeding to propose more complex ones (a violation of Occam's razor); and for cherry-picking outdated evidence (often from the 19th and early 20th centuries) that supports the authors' position, while ignoring or ridiculing more recent information that refutes or challenges their claims^[21]. Tom Morrow of the National Center for Science Education noted that "FA devotes 400 pages to analyzing anomalous stone tools depicted in obscure literature over the past 150 years. Worse, these specimens no longer exist." and called his work pseudoscience^[22].

His book Human Devolution, which like Forbidden Archeology claims that man has existed for millions of years, attempts to prove this by citing "every possible research into the paranormal ever conducted anywhere to 'prove' the truth of holist Vedic cosmology which proposes the presence of a spiritual element in all matter (which takes different forms, thereby explaining the theory of 'devolution')." ^[23].

Academic publications related to Forbidden Archeology[link]

• Cremo, M A. (1999) Puranic Time and the Archeological Record. In Tim Murray, ed. Time and Archaeology, Routledge, London, pp. 38-48.

• Cremo, M. A. (2002) The Later Discoveries of Boucher de Perthes at Moulin Quignon and Their Impact on the Moulin Quignon Jaw Controversy. In Goulven Laurent ed. Proceedings of the XXth International Congress of History of Science (Liege, 20-26 July 1997), Volume X, Earth Sciences, Geography and Cartography. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, pp. 39-56

• Cremo, M. A. (2009) The discoveries of Carlos Ribeiro: a controversial episode in nineteenth-century European archeology. Journal of Iberian Archaeology, vol. 12: 69-89.

• Cremo, M. A. (2008) Excavating the eternal: an indigenous archaeological tradition in India. Antiquity, 82:178-188.

• Cremo, M. A. (2008) Some Angles on the Anglo Debate. Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress, 4(1): 164-167.

Recent years[link]

In recent years, Cremo has organized a number of conferences where ISKCON associated academics exchanged views and experiences.^[24] In March 2009, Cremo appeared in a History Channel television series called Ancient Aliens, and in 2010 a mini series of the same name.^[25]

See also[link]

• Gaudiya Vaishnavism

References[link]

External links[link]

• Official website
• Michael Cremo. "Puranic Time and the Archaeological Record - Vedic Encyclopedia". http://veda.krishna.com/encyclopedia/purantime.htm. 

MS-DOS

64px
An example of MS-DOS's command-line interface, this one showing that the current directory is the root of drive C.
Company / developer	Microsoft Corporation
Programmed in	Assembly language[1]
OS family	DOS
Working state	Discontinued/Historic
Source model	Closed source
Initial release	1981
Latest stable release	8.0 / September 14, 2000; 11 years ago  (2000-09-14)
Available language(s)	Multilanguage
Available programming languages(s)	C, Pascal, QBasic, Batch, etc.
Supported platforms	x86
Kernel type	Monolithic kernel
Default user interface	Command-line interface, Text user interface
License	Proprietary

MS-DOS ( /ˌɛmɛsˈdɒs/ EM-es-DOSS; short for Microsoft Disk Operating System) is an operating system for x86-based personal computers. It was the most commonly used member of the DOS family of operating systems, and was the main operating system for IBM PC compatible personal computers during the 1980s to the mid 1990s, until it was gradually superseded by operating systems offering a graphical user interface (GUI), in particular by various generations of the Microsoft Windows operating system.