A New Athenian Gymnasium from the 4th Century BC?

Schriftquellen belegen, dass das Gymnasium der Athener Akademie vom 6. Jh. v. Chr. bis mindestens zum 2. Jh. n. Chr. benutzt wurde. Der Ort wurde anhand von Texten und einem Horosstein lokalisiert und seit 1929 mehrfach untersucht. Zu den freigelegten Strukturen gehören im Süden ein recht­eckiger Bau mit Hof, der als Palaestra der Akademie gedeutet wurde, und im Norden ein großer quadratischer Peristylbau, der wenig beachtet wurde. Dieser Beitrag revidiert die Identifizierung der beiden Bauten. Es wird gezeigt, dass der Hof des südlichen Baus in die Spätantike gehört und nicht als Palaestra fungiert haben kann. Stattdessen ist der quadratische Bau, dessen Peristyl von Räumen umgeben und der ins 4. Jh. v. Chr. zu datieren ist, anhand von Plan und Inschriften als Palaestra zu identifizieren

A Modern Archaeology of the Sasanian Period: Former Limitations and New Perspective

The article is dealing with theoretical and methodological issues related to the archaeology of the Sasanian period. Those issues which have been handled, too, have clearly always somewhat suffered from a complex of inferiority to other periods of the history of ancient Iran which are considered by far the most formative and important: the Achaemenid and the Islamic eras. For many scholars the archaeology of the Sasanian period and also that of the early Islamic period has always been considered a part of history, and especially of the history of art. This classification, set in stone, has had a long and respectable tradition so far but at last it has begun to be seen from a different perspective by a growing number of scholars. According to this view, the study of the Sasanian period should be seen as a fully-fledged part of an “archaeological” discipline, and therefore should belong to the history of the archaeology of the ancient Near East , even if of its later periods. We do not need to go into the details of the documentation at our disposal (regarding rural villages, settlements, cities, city layouts, buildings, territorial units of various types, architectural remains, bridges, dams, palaces, rock reliefs) in order to understand without difficulty that the archaeology of the Sasanian period still remains a blank, open page. Of course there were good reasons for the existence of such a low level of knowledge of territorial remains (rural villages, settlements, cities, city layouts, buildings, territorial units of various types), architectural (bridges, dams, palaces) and iconographic monuments (rock reliefs) and art objects (pottery, seals, clay sealings, coins, glass, silver textiles, mosaics, and/or simple items) belonging to this period . Much of this state of affairs, however, is to be considered as due to the methods and approaches which scholars took for archaeological research into the Sasanian period as they developed during the last century. For some reason scholars preferred to focus both on particular macroscopic evidence and on the direct importance of easily discovered self-emergent monumental remains, casual, incidental finds and objects located in museums and private collections. Only recently have all these documents been submitted to detailed scrutiny in order to develop an investigative strategy which is more compliant with a more modern understanding of the context and of the spatial and territorial aspects of individual finds. Studies should have given due consideration to the fact that apart from the dynastic successions, the political events concerned and the amount of official epigraphic, numismatic and sphragistic data, there are also archaeological horizons whose interpretation does not always coincide with the interpretations of data of the former kind. Several attempts to give a true picture were made in the 1970s and 1980s, but they do not appear to have achieved the desired aim, and still recently Whitcomb warned against considering dynastic successions and lists of kings as guiding elements for archaeological research

Römische Bildnisse : Bibliographie, ungekürzt, mit den zu ergänzenden Literaturverweisen des Autors

Originalfassung der in der Verlagspublikation um zahlreiche Literaturverweise gekürzten Bibliographie des Werkes: Götz Lahusen: Römische Bildnisse : Auftraggeber, Funktionen, Standorte. - Mainz : von Zabern, 2010. - Lizenz der WBG (Wiss. Buchges.) Darmstadt. - ISBN: 978-3-8053-3738-0. Pp. : EUR 49.9

Environmental reconstruction and wood use at late Chalcolithic Çamlıbel Tarlası, Turkey

Çamlıbel Tarlası is a short-lived, mid 4th millennium BCE Chalcolithic archaeological site in northern central Anatolia, modern Turkey, with evidence for both intensive metallurgy and permanent occupation. Analysis of a wood charcoal assemblage from the site, totaling 2815 charcoal fragments, is the first from this period and region. Anthracological analysis indicates that the primary fuel wood used was deciduous oak, which comprised nearly 90% of identifiable fragments. We find little evidence of differences in wood species used for different functions or over time; however, a significant trend towards the increased use of large-diameter branch or trunk wood over time is noted both for oak and other minor taxa. We reconstruct a dense oak-dominated woodland in the vicinity of the site at the time of first use, with increased forest clearance over time, due to either diminished fuel availability or agricultural expansion, or a combination of the two. An intensification in metallurgical activity in later periods of occupation may have increased demand specifically for large-diameter wood.Accepted manuscrip

Найраніша кераміка з Борисфена (за матеріалами розкопок В. В. Лапіна)

Розглянуто фрагменти розписного посуду, виготовленого в Мілеті і привезеного до Борисфена у найраніший період його існування, у третій чверті VII ст. до н. е. Встановлення сучасних дат найраніших знахідок підтверджує інформацію Євсевія щодо часу заснування Борисфена.The paper examines the earliest materials from the excavations conducted by V. V. Lapin in Borysthenes (the settlement at Berezan Island)

Stratigraphy for Tartessos: Doñana, Mesas de Asta, Carteia, Carmona and Huelva

La identificación de la Tarsis bíblica con el Tartessos de las fuentes clásicas, planteó el problema arqueológico en la segunda mitad del siglo XIX de la necesidad de definir que características tuvo la fase final del Bronce Final en el Suroeste de la Península Ibérica hacia el siglo X AC, contemporáneo a los reinados de Salomon de Israel e Hiram de Tiro. Para resolverlo, el libro “Tartessos” de Adolf Schulten ofreció en 1922 una propuesta fascinante. Una Tartessos, ciudad según Avieno, sede de un Imperio que abarcaba todo el Sur de la Península Ibérica. Este Imperio había sido mencionado por Homero como Feacia y por Platón como la Atlántida. A partir de entonces, la búsqueda del emplazamiento de esta ciudad legendaria ha determinado la investigación arqueológica, primero en Doñana (Sevilla) por A. Schulten y G. Bonsor. Después en Mesas de Asta (Cádiz) por M. Esteve. En tercer lugar en Carteia (Cádiz) por J. Martínez Santa-Olalla. En cuarto lugar en Carmona (Sevilla) por J. de M. Carriazo y K. Raddatz. Y finalmente en Huelva, por J.P. Garrido. Esta investigación de campo, entre 1923-1970, careció de un registro arqueológico publicado asignable al Bronce Final.The identification of the biblical Tarsis with the Tartessos of the classical sources, outlined the archaeological problem in second half of the 19th century of the need to defining that characteristic had the final phase of the Late Bronze Age in the Southwest Iberian Peninsula toward the Xth century BC, contemporary to the reigns of Solomon of Israel and Hiram of Tyre. To solve it, the book Tartessos of Adolf Schulten offered in 1922 a fascinating proposal. Tartessos, city according to Avienus, headquarters of an Empire that was encompassing all the South of the Iberian Peninsula. This Empire had been mentioned by Homero as Phaeacia and by Plato as the Atlantis. From then on, the search of the site of this legendary city has determined the archaeological investigation, first in Doñana (Seville) by A. Schulten and G. Bonsor. After in Mesas de Asta (Cadiz) by M. Esteve. In third place in Carteia (Cadiz) by J. Martínez Santa-Olalla. In fourth place in Carmona (Seville) by J.M. Carriazo and K. Raddatz. And finally in Huelva, by J.P. Garrido. This field investigation, between 1923-1970, lacked a published archaeological record assigned to the Late Bronze Age

„The Ionians at War?“ Die Waffenweihungen in den ionischen Heiligtümern und das Apollon‑Heiligtum von Didyma

Weapons and armour were among the most frequent kinds of offerings made in the sanctuaries of the Greek world during the Archaic period. There exists an extensive bibliography and important theories concerning their significance. It was, however, only recently that most of the weapon votives preserved from about 130 cult places were analysed in summary. This synopsis pointed out certain differences in terms of chronology and chorology: the finds of weapons and armour were unearthed mainly in the Panhellenic or supra‑regional sanctuaries in the southern and central Greece (Olympia, Delphi, Kalapodi etc.), whereas the cult places in the eastern Aegean remained relatively poor in these dedications; in Attika and Magna Graecia on the other hand the amount of the votives only started to increase in the 6th c. BC. The aim of this study is to complement the picture of weapons and armour dedicated in sanctuaries of the ancient Greek world with the recently published and excavated finds from the eastern Aegean region of Ionia.72