Electra Atlantis: Digital Approaches to Antiquity

http://planet.atlantides.org/electra

Tom Elliott (tom.elliott@nyu.edu)

This feed aggregator is part of the Planet Atlantides constellation. Its current content is available in multiple webfeed formats, including Atom, RSS/RDF and RSS 1.0. The subscription list is also available in OPML and as a FOAF Roll. All content is assumed to be the intellectual property of the originators unless they indicate otherwise.

March 05, 2015

Kristina Killgrove (Powered by Osteons)

Roman Bioarchaeology Carnival LXIX

February brought a ridiculously huge number of announcements about new bioarchaeological finds.  For all the stories, you should follow Powered by Osteons on Facebook.  Here I have collected last month's Roman and Roman-adjacent finds:

Roman Provinces
The "oldest brain's"
original home (York Archaeo)
  • 21 January - Britain's oldest brain (York Archaeology). While not exactly Roman in date, this preserved brain goes back to the 6th century AD, which is all kinds of cool.  Can't wait to read about what they find out from this organ!
  • 31 January - About the funerary ritual of Sanisera's necropolis (Sanisera Blog).  Sanisera is a Roman port city on Minorca, and excavations have been underway for a number of years on its necropolis.  This blog post does not have much information but highlights the re-use of tombs, likely by family members, over time.
  • 3 February - New mummies discovered floating in sewage in Upper Egypt (Daily News Egypt). It seems that two mummies of women from the Roman era were found, along with their sarcophagi, floating in sewage near a small village.  Officials think some unauthorized digging caused the discovery and destruction of the mummies.
Student excavating at Ipplepen (BAJR)
  • 10 February - Skeletons uncovered at Ipplepen reveal major Roman cemetery (British Archaeology News Resource). Around a dozen skeletons were found at this settlement in Devon. Notably, there are some skeletons that date to the post-Roman period, suggesting continuity even after Roman rule was over.
  • 12 February - The GPAT neighborhood with Megan Perry (GPAT).  Bioarchaeologist Megan Perry has an interview with a local TV program on her work at Petra in Jordan that is well worth listening to!
  • 25 February - 'Unique' Roman tombstone found in Cirencester (BBC). Not sure why 'unique' is in scare quotes because it is -- this tombstone was found with the skeleton to whom it referred, a woman named Bodica who died at age 27, which makes it really, really unusual if not completely unique.  I wish we had more tombstone-skeleton combinations because there's a whole bunch of historical-bioarchaeological stuff that could be done (that I can't do with just skeletons).
    Skull of Bodica, whose tombstone was found
    in Roman Britain (BBC)


Italy and the Roman World Writ Large


Charles Ellwood Jones (AWOL: The Ancient World Online)

Open Access Australasian Society for Classical Studies Proceedings

 [First posted in AWOL 28 July 2010, updated (addition of the 30 papers from ASCS 32) 5 March 2015]

Have you taken the AWOL User Survey?

Australasian Society for Classical Studies (ASCS) Conference Proceedings
http://www.ascs.org.au/ascs_header_left.gif
ASCS 33
Following the ASCS tradition to publish a limited number of papers presented at the annual conference on the society’s website, we are pleased to announce that the papers from ASCS 33 (2012) are now available, edited by Eva Anagnostou-Laoutides.
The link below will take you to the abstracts of papers presented at the ASCS 33 conference in Melbourne in 2012:

ASCS 32
These Selected Proceedings consist of 30 papers originally presented at the University of Auckland, 24-27 January 2011, edited by Assoc. Prof. Anne Mackay.
Editor's preface
These Selected Proceedings consist of papers originally presented at the 32nd Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Classical Studies (ASCS), convened by my colleague, Dr Jeremy Armstrong, and myself, and held in New Zealand at the University of Auckland, 24th-27th January 2011. ASCS is the professional body in Australasia for those engaged in study of the classical world, and its conference is the largest annual meeting in the region for the dissemination of new research in the many subsidiary fields.
ASCS 32 was exceptionally large, with over 180 registrants drawn from both hemispheres variously attending five parallel sessions in which were presented some 150 papers. A wider range of research areas than usual was represented: in addition to Greek and Roman history, philosophy and literature, there were several sessions on archaeology and material evidence, including Egyptology; there were particularly strong contingents of those involved in the fields of ancient philosophy and late antiquity, and also the classical  tradition. This broader representation of research expertise enabled a valuable measure of interdisciplinarity in many post-paper discussions. The Conference’s range of sub-disciplines is, as it has turned out (and not by design), well represented in these Selected Proceedings.
ASCS 32 confirmed the decision taken at ASCS 31 (Perth, Australia) to publish the selected proceedings of the conference on line. Speakers were accordingly invited to submit manuscripts, which were then subjected to independent and expert anonymous peer review: the papers presented here have all been selected as a result of this review process. I should like to acknowledge my sincere gratitude to those necessarily anonymous colleagues in several countries who have supported the endeavour by generously agreeing to serve as referee-readers.
Access to these refereed papers is free, but the copyright of all material remains with the individual authors unless otherwise indicated. While each paper is individually paginated and accompanied by its own list of references, it has been the editor’s intention to impose on the collection a homogeneity of presentation sufficient to warrant its being regarded as a single publication. Abbreviations are standard, where possible following the OCD3.
Papers should be cited as follows:
Author (2011). ‘Title’, in ASCS 32 Selected Proceedings, ed. Anne Mackay (ascs.org.au/news/ascs32/Author.pdf).
Anne Mackay
University of Auckland
New Zealand
June 2011

Contents


D.A. Alexander Marc Antony’s Assault of Publius Clodius: Fact or Ciceronian Fiction? abstract full text
J. Armstrong Power and Politics in Fifth Century BC Rome. The Censorship and Consular Tribunate in Context abstract full text
J. Barsby Classics At Otago 3: The Manton Period (1949-65) abstract full text
M. Bissett Visualising Festivals: Black-figure Depictions of the Delia abstract full text
D. Burton Hades: Cornucopiae, Fertility And Death abstract full text
M.W. Champion Aeneas of Gaza on the Soul abstract full text
R. Covino The Fifth Century, the Decemvirate, and the Quaestorship abstract full text
M. Davies Senecan Philosophy as Counter-ideology (Epistle 31) abstract full text
A. Dawson Seeing Dead People: A Study of the Cypselids abstract full text
R. Evans Learning to be Decadent: Roman Identity and the Luxuries of Others abstract full text
V. Gray Work in Progress on Xenophon’s Language abstract full text
L. Grech From Popery to Paganism: Oscar Wilde in Greece abstract full text
C.R. Hamilton ‘I Judge between two brothers, to their satisfaction’ – Biographies and the Legal System in the Old Kingdom abstract full text
P. Hannah Soldier and Sceptre-Bearer: a Question of Identification in Attic Vase Painting abstract full text
J. Hellum Pepi I: a Case Study of Royal Religious Devotion in the Old Kingdom abstract full text
V. Howan Three Fleets or Two? abstract full text
I. Kehrberg Roman Gerasa Seen From Below. An Alternative Study of Urban Landscape abstract full text
M. Leenen The Evolution of Roman Diplomatic Interaction with the Achaean League, 200-146 B.C.E abstract full text
B. Marshall ‘Where Have All the Leaders Gone?’ A Possible Reason for the Failure of the Sullan Senate. abstract full text
M. Masterson The Visibility of ‘Queer’ Desire in Eunapius’ Lives of the Philosophers abstract full text
P. Mountford Aeneas: An Etruscan Foundation Legend abstract full text
J. O’Maley Paradigm Introductions and Mytho-Historical Authority in the Iliad abstract full text
L. O’Sullivan Tyrannicides, Symposium and History: A Consideration of the Tyrannicide Law in Hyperides 2.3 abstract full text
S.R. Perris What Maketh the Messenger? Reportage in Greek Tragedy abstract full text
J. Ratcliffe Cornelius Celsus and the Treatment of Fistula in Ano: a Surprise and a Conundrum abstract full text
G. Salapata The More the Better? Votive Offerings in Sets abstract full text
K. Slaska-Sapala Paradise Lost and the Language of Epic Rebellion abstract full text
J. Stove ‘Gut-madness’: Gastrimargia in Plato and Beyond abstract full text
H. Tarrant A Six-Book Version of Plato’s Republic: Same Text Divided Differently, or Early Version? abstract full text
L. Wadeson Nabataean Tomb Complexes at Petra: New Insights in the Light of Recent Fieldwork abstract full text
All abstracts (PDF)


ASCS 31
The Proceedings of the Conference, containing 29 of the papers delivered, were edited, after a refereeing process, and produced in electronic format by Dr Neil O'Sullivan. They are available online at

Editor's preface

These papers were originally presented at the 31st conference of the Australasian Society for Classical Studies, convened by my colleague, Dr Lara O'Sullivan, and held in Perth at the University of Western Australia, 2-5 February 2010. ASCS is the peak body in Australasia for the professional study of the classical world, and its conference is the largest annual meeting in the region for the dissemination of new research in this very international field. The Discipline Group of Classics and Ancient History at UWA wishes to acknowledge the generous contribution of the UWA Vice-Chancellor, Professor Alan Robson, in support of this event.
As the programme shows, ASCS 31 featured some 80 papers, with speakers drawn from four continents. This year, for the first time, a plan was formulated to publish the papers of the conference and so make their findings available to a much wider audience. Speakers were invited to submit their work, which was then subjected to independent and expert anonymous peer review. The papers presented here have all passed this review process and been recommended for publication. I take this opportunity to thank once more the referees for the generous donation of their time and expertise.

Access to these refereed papers is free, but the copyright of all material remains with the individual authors unless otherwise indicated.

Please cite papers in the following way:

Author, 'Title', in ASCS 31 [2010] Proceedings: classics.uwa.edu.au/ascs31

Each paper is individually paginated.

Neil O'Sullivan
University of Western Australia
July 2010


Contents

M. Beasley A philosophical Gigantomachy in the Metamorphoses abstract full text
F. Billot Hannibal, elephants and turrets abstract full text
D. Blyth Philosophy in the late Latin West abstract full text
D. Burton The role of Zeus Meilichios in Argos abstract full text
M.W. Champion Creation from Gaza abstract full text
J. Davidson Prometheus Bound in Christchurch 2009 abstract full text
S. Ford Spatial context of Odyssey 5.452 to 6.317 abstract full text
S. Gador-Whyte Emotional preaching: ekphrasis in the Kontakia of Romanos abstract full text
P. Garrett Character inheritance in Suetonius' Caligula and Nero abstract full text
M. Gillett The 'Etruscan League' reconsidered abstract full text
K.M. Heineman The chasm at Delphi: a modern perspective abstract full text
D. James Art of gold: precious metals and Chariton's Callirhoe abstract full text
P. Jarvis The politics of fraud: a Seruilius Casca in Livy abstract full text
P. Johnson Fabius, Marcellus and Otacilius - the alliance that never was abstract full text
D. Keenan-Jones The Aqua Augusta and control of water resources in the Bay of Naples abstract full text
B. Leadbetter Galerius, Gamzigrad and the politics of abdication abstract full text
J. Maitland Homer and the Aiakid cousins: kinship celebrated or overlooked in the Iliad abstract full text
B. Marshall 'With friends like this, who needs enemies?' Pompeius' abandonment of his friends and supporters abstract full text
S. Midford From Achilles to Anzac: Heroism in the Dardanelles from antiquity to the Great War abstract full text
G. Miles 'I, Porphyry': narrator and reader in the Vita Plotini abstract full text
P. O'Sullivan Use your illusion: 'Critias' on religion reconsidered abstract full text
K.J. O'Toole The Demosthenic basileus: a phantom in the Ath. Pol.? abstract full text
D.J. Phillips Thucydides 1.99: tribute and revolts in the Athenian empire abstract full text
D. Pritchard War, democracy and culture in classical Athens abstract full text
R. Sing Jury pay and Aristophanes abstract full text
H. Tarrant The Theaetetus as a narrative dialogue? abstract full text
W.J. Tatum Tyche in Plutarch's Aemilius Paulus - Timoleon abstract full text
J. Wallis (Un)Elegiac characterisation in Propertius 3.12 abstract full text
K. Welch Pietas, Pompeiani and Cicero's Thirteenth Philippic abstract full text

 


Roger Pearse (Thoughts on Antiquity, Patristics, putting things online, and more)

Some stories from the Apophthegmata Patrum

I suppose that only a few will download the PDFs of Anthony Alcock’s new translation from Coptic of the Sayings of the Fathers.  But it contains many stories that the monks told each other.  Here are one or two samples.  I have over-paragraphed them for readability.

226. It was said of Apa Macarius that one day as he was walking in the desert, he found a skull. He moved it with his staff and it spoke.

The elder said to it: ‘Who are you ?’ It said: ‘I am the high priest of the pagans who were in this place. And you are Macarius the spirit-bearer at all times. If you are merciful to those in punishment, they will have a little rest.’

Apa Macarius said: ‘ What is rest ?’ He said: ‘As the heaven is far from the earth, so is the fire below us and above us as we stand in the middle of the fire. It is impossible for anyone to see the face of his neighbour, but back is turned to back. When you pray for us, each one for a moment sees the face of his neighbour.’

The elder heard this and said: ‘Woe to the day when the man was born if this is rest from punishment.’

The elder said to him: ‘Is there torture worse than this ?’

The skull said to him: ‘The great tortures below us.’

The elder said: ‘We who did not know God are given a little mercy. Those who knew God and denied Him and did not do His will, they are below us.’

The elder then took the skull, dug a hole in the ground, put it there and left.

It looks as if there is a mistake in the text: surely it must be the skull that describes “those below us”, rather than Macarius?

Here’s another:

231. At the time of Julian the Impious, when he went to Persia, he sent a demon to the west to bring news to him in haste. When the demon reached places where a monk lived, he stayed there for ten days. He did not move. He was unable to walk because the monk did not stop praying day or night.

The demon returned to the one who had sent him without having done anything. He said to him: ‘Why did you take so long ?’

The demon replied: ‘I took so long and did nothing because I spent ten days waiting for Apa Publius to stop praying when I might leave, but he did not stop. I was prevented from leaving and I returned, having wasted my time.’

The impious Julian then became angry, saying: ‘I will deal with him when I get back.’

Within a few days he was struck and died through the providence of God. One of the eparchs with him went and sold everything he had and gave the money to the poor. He came to the elder and became a monk with him.

Anthony Alcock, Fourth part of Coptic Sayings of the Fathers now online

Anthony Alcock continues his translation of the Apophthegmata Patrum – The Sayings of the Fathers with a translation of the fourth and final part.  The complete set are all here.

AMIR: Access to Mideast and Islamic Resources

Open Access Journal: Türkiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi (HÜTAD)

Türkiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi (HÜTAD)
ISSN: 1305-5992
Hacettepe Üniversitesi Türkiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi 2004 Güz döneminden itibaren yayımlanan, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Türkiyat Araştırmaları Enstitüsünün yayın organıdır. Dergi hakemli, süreli ve yerel nitelikte olup, disiplinler arası bir yaklaşımla Türklük bilimi alanı ile bağlantılı sosyal, kültürel, ekonomik, politik vb. içerikli, tarihsel veya çağdaş konularda özgün nitelikte, kuramsal ve/veya uygulamalı araştırma ve incelemelere yer verir.  Kısaltılmış adı HÜTAD olan dergi, Bahar ve Güz sayıları olmak üzere yılda iki kez yayımlanır.

The Digital Orentalist: Full-Text Online Arabic Sources: A Preliminary List

The Digital Orentalist: Full-Text Online Arabic Sources: A Preliminary List
https://digitalorientalist.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/cropped-logodigitalorientalist6.jpg
A truly epic amount of Arabic books, both classical and modern, have been scanned already. But what is the status of digitized texts, that is, where one does not look at an image of a page, but where the text of that page has been faithfully typed out? I am not aware of a list of online resources available, let alone a comprehensive analysis of them. If you do know of such or if you are able to contribute other sources or if you can give detailed information on one of these sources, please do contact me!
I here present my first findings of my inquiry. The restrictions I applied are:
  • Arabic texts
  • Exceptions only for those texts clearly pertaining to the Islamic civilization or modern Muslim world.
  • Online
  • Large quantity
  • True text (not images)
  • Free access
So far I found 27 websites that agree to these restrictions. I suspect that many of them contain the same sources. This in itself is not bad, it will help with assuring the continued existence of these digital resources. I only have cursory first-hand knowledge of a couple of them. I would really like it if people with experience with these websites could share their insights!
Here is the list. I hope to continue my investigation in this important topic.
  1. http://islamport.com
    1. Works with Shamela.
  2. http://lib.eshia.ir
    1. Works nicely, except for print function. Some overlap with noorlib.
  3. http://library.tebyan.net
  4. http://www.noorlib.ir
    • Excellent resource. Account required (free).
  5. http://rafed.net/booklib/
    1. Search function is flaky but the interface for books is nice.
  6. http://shamela.ws/
  7. http://iucontent.iu.edu.sa/Shamela/
    • Copy of shamela.ws?
  8. http://sh.rewayat2.com
    • Copy of shamela.ws?
  9. http://www.aldhiaa.com/arabic/book.php?sort=all
  10. http://library.al-kawkab.com
  11. http://kl28.com
    1. Partly Shamela. Some magazines. Search function flaky.
  12. http://emamieh.com/ar/BookAlphabet.html
  13. http://shiaonlinelibrary.com
  14. http://gadir.free.fr
    • Different languages, including English and French!
  15. http://www.yasoob.org/ar/
  16. http://www.almeshkat.net/
  17. http://www.altafsir.com/
    • Restricted to tafāsir.
  18. http://islamic-books.org
    • Very slow.
  19. http://library.islamweb.net/newlibrary/index.php
  20. http://www.al-islam.com/
  21. http://www.al-eman.com/index.htm
  22. http://rashf.com
    1. Claims to be a crowd-sourced project currently containing about 12.000 titles.
  23. http://www.hindawi.org
    1. I find this to be a rather exciting website: it features Arabic books on European culture and translations of books in European languages.
  24. http://www.dahsha.com/
  25. http://4kitab.com
  26. http://mybook4u.com
  27. http://www.nashiri.net/ebooks.html

dh+lib: where the digital humanities and librarianship meet

POST: About the DLF E-Research Network

Jason A. Clark (Montana State University) has written a post about his experience with the Digital Library Federation (DLF) E-Research Network, a “community of practice focused on sharing resources for implementing research data management services as well as for shared skill development and collaboration.” Clark outlines some of the immediate benefits of participating in the program, while also considering the long-term value of the endeavor:

As I see it, the DLF E-Research Network can be a part of that movement and help us build research libraries that are conversant with how data is created, shared, and shaped into new tools and services.

Registration for the 2015 E-Research Network is open until March 31st. The fee per institution with up to three participants is $3,000; DLF members and CLIR sponsors receive a $500 discount on the institutional fee.

POST: Fitting the Pieces Together: Progress on Linked Data for Libraries

Trevor Owens (Institute of Museum and Library Services) provides a recap of the Linked Data for Libraries (LD4L) Workshop that took place at Stanford University in February, 2015, in a post on the IMLS blog.

Owens notes that “one of the central points of focus at the meeting was to work through a series of use cases in which librarians and library users might make use of linked data-based services to aid their use of library resources” that are “quite useful in illustrating how linked data can help meet the needs of particular library user communities.”

Owens goes on to provide links to lightning talks and presentations, the “tweetwall” archive of the #LD4L twitter stream, and other resources for learning more about linked open data.

 

 

POST: What is Digital Scholarship? A Typology

William G. Thomas III (University of Nebraska-Lincoln) offers a typology for digital scholarship in the humanities, which will be discussed in greater depth in the upcoming revised edition of Blackwell’s Companion to Digital Humanities. Thomas notes that the definitions “are not meant to exclude or restrict the definition of digital scholarship. Indeed, I hope these definitions might provoke some further discussion about how to undertake reviews of digital scholarship.”

The types, in brief, are:

Interactive Scholarly Works
“These works are hybrids of archival materials and tool components, and are situated around a historiographically significant or critical concern. These works often assert a methodological argument as well, demonstrating that the combination of tools and materials serves as a method worthy of applying to the problem.”

Digital Projects or Thematic Research Collections
“Combining tools and archival materials framed around a historiographically significant or critical problem, these projects are sprawling investigations into a major problem.”

Digital Narratives
“These scholarly works are born-digital, and they primarily feature a work of scholarly interpretation or argument embedded within layers of evidence and citation. They do not and presumably cannot exist in analog fashion.”

RESOURCE: Getting the Word Out: Academic Libraries as Scholarly Publishers

ACRL has announced the publication of Getting the Word Out: Academic Libraries as Scholarly Publishers, edited by Maria Bonn (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) and Mike Furlough (HathiTrust).

Divided into three sections (what, how, and why libraries publish) and featuring a redoubtable roster of contributors, the volume includes information on collaboration, publishing agreements, “archival APIs,” data curation, and more.

Available for purchase as an e-book or print/e-book bundle, readers may also download the complete book as an open access PDF.

CFP: Future of Digital Methods for Complex Datasets (IJHAC)

The International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing (IJHAC) has announced a call for submissions to its 10th anniversary special edition, “Future of Digital Methods for Complex Datasets.” Edited by Jennifer Giuliano and Mia Ridge, the collection invites chapters that address:

  • In an environment where resources for humanities education are reduced, how might the decline of humanistic and artistic disciplines challenge the future of digital methods?
  • Is Digital Methodology for the Humanities & Arts something distinct from data science or other computational methods? Or alternately, has the underlying reliance on “data” forged a common methodology across previously distinct disciplines?
  • What might the critical theoretical perspectives (e.g. Feminist, post-colonial, etc) offer to Digital Methodology?
  • What problems might scholars need to account for in their digital methods if we anticipate a future where copyright, international law, and publishing systems become more restrictive?
  • How might conflicts between or syntheses of analog and digital methodologies lead to a richer system of approaches?
  • What might non-western systems of Digital Methodology bring to the future of the Digital Humanities?
  • How might digital techniques and approaches from other disciplines impact the future of Digital Humanities?
  • How might Digital Methodologies, Digital assumptions, and modes of thinking destabilize fundamental humanistic and artistic scholarly assumptions?

Abstracts are due April 15, 2015, with complete chapters due August 1, 2015.

JOB: Metadata Description Author (White House Historical Association)

From the announcement:

The White House Historical Association is seeking a Metadata Description Author to work as part of the Digital Library team at the David M. Rubenstein Center for White House History. Primary duties will include identifying digital and analog images and researching their provenance and content in order to produce metadata and writing metadata descriptions according to in-house standards. Additional responsibilities may include training staff on metadata standards, assisting with scanning projects, and working with the Digital Librarian on library planning. This is a full-time contract position at the White House Historical Association in downtown Washington D.C.

JOB: Digital Scholarship & Publishing Librarian, University of South Florida

From the announcement:

Building on the current University of South Florida Library program in open-access publishing, digital scholarship, and data management, this position will coordinate scholarly communications activities across the campus and help guide the campus toward innovative and sustainable methods of dissemination and preservation of scholarly output.

Charles Ellwood Jones (AWOL: The Ancient World Online)

Iraqi Open Access Journals

 [First posted in AWOL 7 December 2012, updated 5 March 2015]

Have you taken the AWOL User Survey?

Iraqi Academic Scientific Journals -  نبذة حول المشروع
http://www.iasj.net/iasjImages/iasjE.gif       http://www.iasj.net/iasjImages/iasjA.gif
The Ministry of Higher Education & Scientific Research of Iraq is pleased to announce the launch of the new service "Iraqi Academic Scientific Journals" (IASJ). 

IASJ is one platform where all scholarly journals published by the Iraqi universities and research institutions are indexed and discovered. All journals in IASJ are peer-reviewed and open access. 

The main aim of IASJ is to improve the online discoverability and visibility of and access to the published scholarly research of iraqi academics. IASJ will help Iraqi authors to disseminate their research globally. 

At the moment IASJ is launched in a Beta version with only 71 journals published by 18 institutions. The service will be further developed and will cover all journals, more than 200 journals publisher by 40 academic institutions in Iraq. 

IASJ is developed and hosted by SemperTool, a company specialized in building digital library products. All content of IASJ will be included in the Iraqi Virtual Library System IVSL and it's discovery system LibHub provided by SemperTool. 

نبذة حول المشروع
يعتبر المشروع من اهم المشاريع الاستراتيجية الكبرى التي تبنتها وزارة التعليم العالي والبحث العلمي العراقية بنشر وفهرسة المجلات العراقية الصادرة من الجامعات والهيئات العراقية كافة حيث ان جميع المجلات المتوفرة على هذا الموقع هي مجلات محكمة و ستكون الاعداد متوفرة منذ عام 2005 ولغاية الان وتتحدث دوريا وسيتم تطبيق نظام استكشاف وفهرسة متطور من شركة SemperTool الدنماركية ويمتاز بالعديد من المواصفات الشبيهة بنظام المستخدم لادارة المكتبة الافتراضية العراقية

The following journals are listed under the subject Archaeology


مجلة مركز دراسات الكوفة



واسط للعلوم الانسانية
ISSN: 1812512
Publisher: Wassit University
Subject: Historical archaeology --- Education (General)


مجلة كلية التربية للبنات للعلوم الانسانية
ISSN: 19935242
Publisher: Kufa University
Subject: Historical archaeology

Archeomatica: Tecnologie per i Beni Culturali

A Tirana seminario Università di Macerata sulle attività di rilievo con droni ad Hadrianopolis

Venerdì 13 marzo 2015 dalle ore 9.30 alle ore 12.30 presso il Museo Storico Nazionale di Tirana si terrà il Workshop dal titolo "Il rilievo Aerofotogrammetrico con droni. Esempi in ambito archeologico per la Valle del Drino: Hadrianapolis, Jergucat, Frashtan e Antigonea nel distretto di Gjirokastra".

Dal 2005 è attiva presso il sito di Hadrianopolis (Sofratikë), nel sud dell’Albania, la missione archeologica italo-albanese diretta dai professori Roberto Perna e Dimiter Çondi, rispettivamente dell’Università di Macerata e dell’Istituto di Archeologia Albanese. Durante l’ultima campagna di scavi condotta nell’estate 2014, grazie al progetto “Adriatico” finanziato dalla Regione Marche, sono stati effettuati voli e riprese dall’alto con droni radiocomandati sui siti di Hadrianopolis, Antigonea, Jercuzat, Frashtan e sul Castello di Argirocastro. Gli scatti e le riprese elaborate per ciascun sito hanno consentito di creare sia modelli 3d dei siti sia ortofoto che saranno utilizzate per lo studio e la gestione della Carta archeologica della Valle del Drino e per la realizzazione del Piano di Protezione Civile dei Beni Culturali della Valle. Questi dati permetteranno inoltre l’elaborazione della nuova cartografia delle aree, di aggiornate planimetrie archeologiche e del piano generale di gestione del Parco di Antigonea – Hadrianopolis.

Bill Caraher (The New Archaeology of the Mediterranean World)

Adventures in Podcasting 4: ISIS, Iconoclasm, and the Humanizing of Objects

Richard Rothaus and I once again ventured into the uncertain waters of podcasting. Content enough with our efforts to discuss academia, our research, and our shared history, we decided to turn our banter to more controversial topics.

So, this week, we discuss ISIS’s highly-publicized video showing their destruction of objects in the Mosul museum. There has been some debate concerning the authenticity of these events and the extent of the destruction, but they have nevertheless captured the attention of archaeologists and antiquity lovers the world over.

_

Of particular interest to us was how these videos pushed archaeologists to break out of our scientistical mode of inquiry and actually express genuine emotional concern for these objects. The ISIS destruction of these statues suggests that they saw these objects as potentially competing source for authority, and this understanding of statues extends back at least to Late Antiquity where more fanatical members of Christian communities defaced pagan statues (see below). Modern archaeology, however, has tended to privilege a more dispassionate attitude toward objects. In fact, it is only with the discovery and destruction of objects that archaeologists “allowed” to express genuine compassion for the material evidence for the past. Outside of these circumstances, we typically accept that even the most spectacular find is merely an arbitrary sample of an unknown total number of objects, monuments, and sites. The ritualized destruction of objects by ISIS evoked emotion (both the triumphant celebration of the destroyers and the anguished cries of the western world) that trumped the scientific rituals associated with archaeological practice which work to suppress emotional commitments to destructive practices of archaeology in much the same way that the ritualized interaction between doctor and patient reinforces a kind of scientific objectivity.

 What’s interesting to me (and not to speak for Richard here) is that recent work in archaeological theory has made efforts to consider more critically the role of artifacts in the archaeological process. Some scholars have advanced complex arguments arguing that objects have agency, require ethical treatment, and provide the foundation for a more symmetrical archaeology. Witnessing ISIS destruction of antiquities has provided an opportunity for even more conservative members of the profession to humanize their objects of study as they abandoned their staunchly defended place among the post-Enlightenment sciences and indulge in Romantic sentimentality. At the end of the podcast Richard pushed me to consider the ultimate implications of an emotional investment in these objects as he recounts the story of a young soldier from Minnesota who lost his life guarding a museum in Iraq and the podcast concludes with Richard’s rather abrupt assessment of this. For him, the agency of objects and their ethical treatment has very clear limits. Our hope is that our discussion offers an provocative perspective to critically engage recent events!

Here’s a link to the impressive joint statement by the AIA/ASOR/AAA/SAA/AAMD on ISIS and here’s a link to Wayne Sayles blog (for the post he took down, I can only provide a dramatic reading).

I won’t link to the video of ISIS destroying antiquities. 

Here’s a link to the Life of Porphyry of Gaza and Marinos’s Life of Proclus.

Here’s a link to the Atlantic Monthly story: “What ISIS Wants”.

Here are some images from Richard’s book Corinth: First City of Greece (Brill 2000) which you can purchase for the low, low price of $177.72.

RothausPicts

Here are some resources regarding Pfc. Edward Herrgot.

Your Enthusiasm for Protecting Antiquities Cost Army Pfc. Edward J. Herrgott His Life

 

The full tale of Pfc. Herrgott, the first Minnesotan to die in the Iraq war (3 July 2003), is little known. The news reports all read “Herrgott, 20, of Shakopee, Minn., died July 3 when a sniper shot him in the neck outside the National Museum in Baghdad.” But here is a fuller account from our fellow The Ohio State University Alum, Colonel Peter Mansoor:

“Two days into my command, the Ready First Combat Team lost its third soldier since its arrival in Baghdad and the first of my tenure. Private First Class Edward J. Herrgott was guarding the Baghdad Museum when he was shot and killed by armed gunmen. I visited the location shortly after his death and was shocked by what I discovered. The museum was not the one that contained the ancient treasures of Iraq but was rather more akin to a wax museum for the enjoyment of locals and tourists. The curator had removed all of the exhibits to a safe location to prevent their theft in the aftermath of the war, but nevertheless CJTF-7 had ordered us to guard the place. The media frenzy over the looting of the National Museum of Antiquities had provoked a knee-jerk reaction to guard every place that could possibly be construed to have cultural value. The end result was that we were guarding an empty structure, one made indefensible by the cavernous buildings that engulfed it on both sides and parking garage several stories high across the street. The gunmen who killed Herrgott had sneaked up a side alley and engaged him from the flank as he manned his position in the hatch of a Bradley fighting vehicle.

I was determined to get my soldiers out of that death trap. . . . “

Peter Mansoor, Baghdad at Sunrise: A Brigade Commander’s War in Iraq. Yale University Press, 2008.

**************************

Note 1: Herrgott’s Aunt is worth quoting: “President Bush made a comment a week ago, and he said, ‘bring it on.’ They brought it on and now my nephew is dead.

Note 2: I didn’t meet Col. Mansoor when we overlapped at the massive OSU. I met him while working on a battlefield study of New Ulm, MN, his home town. If you don’t think the world is ruled by serendipity and The Ohio State University, you are mistaken. And we are fine with that.

Note 3: It looks like the Washington Post ran the Wax Museum Story on 8 July 2003, but I’m not 100% sure.

 


Archeomatica: Tecnologie per i Beni Culturali

Presto in 3D la casa di Ludovico Ariosto

La società GEIS - Geomatics Engineering di Modena ha comunicato la sperimentazione di un nuovo nuovo modello di laser scanner 3D presso la casa natale di Ludovico Ariosto nel Parco del Mauriziano a Reggio Emilia. 

March 04, 2015

Charles Ellwood Jones (AWOL: The Ancient World Online)

Open Access Journal: Art & Cultural Heritage Law Newsletter

[First posted in AWOL  31 October 2009. Updated 4 March 2015]

Have you taken the AWOL User Survey?

Art & Cultural Heritage Law Newsletter: A Publication of the Art & Cultural Heritage Law Committee
This committee is composed of attorneys with an interest in the field of art, cultural heritage, and cultural property law and who work in a variety of settings, including private practice, museums, government, and academia. This area of law is concerned with both movable and immovable property of artistic, cultural, religious and historic interest. Topics recently considered by the committee include the 1970 UNESCO Convention and international trade in antiquities, underwater cultural heritage, art works stolen during the Holocaust, ratification of the 1954 Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, and the impact of war on the cultural heritage of Iraq. Within a diverse field with often sharply differing opinions, the committee endeavors to represent a variety of perspectives and welcomes all with an interest in this timely and fascinating subject.
A&CH Law Committee Spring 2014 Newsletter
A&CH Law Committee Year in Review (2013)
Newsletters and Year in Review Archive
Call for Articles!

The Digital Archaeological Record (tDar) News

Faunal Data Entry and Integration in tDAR Workshop @ SAA 2015!

Katherine A. Spielmann (Arizona State University) and Tiffany Clark (Arizona State University) will be hosting a workshop to train participants in the uploading, mapping, and integrated analysis of faunal datasets in the Digital Archaeological Record (tDAR) at the San Francisco Society for American Archaeology Annual Meeting.  tDAR provides an innovative and powerful approach to the synthesis of original archaeological data through the use of an analytical tool that makes it possible to integrate databases (or spreadsheets) that were recorded by different investigators using different analytical protocols. The resulting unified database can then be used to address a diversity of research questions.

During the workshop the instructors will introduce tDAR and explain what coding keys and ontologies are, and how they fit together in tDAR. They will then work with each participant to upload one faunal dataset and its associated coding key, and on mapping their coding key to the general ontologies for a broad range of faunal variables that are available in tDAR. Towards the end of the workshop they will demonstrate the integration of multiple datasets using the tDAR data integration tool.

If you register for the workshop, instructions for what you should do before leaving home will be emailed to you.

Sign up for the workshop when registering for the meeting. Have you already registered? You can edit your registration through the SAA registration page to add this and other workshops and events.

Details:
Wednesday, 15 April, 1:00pm–5:00pm;

maximum 10 persons;

$90 meeting attendees

We also encourage you to stop by our booth in the exhibit hall.  Digital Antiquity staff will be on hand all week to answer your questions and give you a personalized tour of tDAR.  You can even sign up in advance for a 15 minute meeting with one of us to ensure you don’t have to wait!  Click here to access the calendar and select your time.

Charles Ellwood Jones (AWOL: The Ancient World Online)

The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (CSNTM): Manuscripts

 [First posted in AWOL 13 December 2013, updated 4 March 2015]

Have you taken the AWOL User Survey?

The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (CSNTM): Manuscripts
http://csntm.org/Content/Images/bg_header_homepage.jpg
The requirements that need to be satisfied for using these images in publication vary from manuscript to manuscript. Each possessing institute or individual has its own requirements. If you wish to publish any of these images, you will need to get permission from CSNTM first. We can then direct you to the contact person of the institute that owns the manuscript(s) for further instructions. CSNTM does not charge for the use of these images, though the institute that owns the manuscripts may. At minimum, CSNTM needs to be credited with the photographs and the possessing institute needs to be credited with ownership of the manuscript in all research for which these images are used. For more information about usage of manuscript images, contact info@csntm.org

In order to find your way through the images of manuscripts, you should download the scripture index for each manuscript (it's the first document on each manuscript's page). Only a few manuscripts currently have a scripture index, but more are coming.

Press Release
2 March 2015
In the summer of 2013, the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (CSNTM) digitized the Greek biblical papyri housed at the Chester Beatty Library (CBL) in Dublin, Ireland. The Chester Beatty collection includes some of the earliest and most important Greek biblical manuscripts in the world. In addition to these biblical manuscripts, CSNTM also digitized several extra-biblical Greek papyri that are part of the CBL collection.
For the first time, images of two of these extra-biblical Chester Beatty manuscripts have now been made available:
1) The Apocryphon of Jannes and Jambres the Magicians
Jannes and Jambres is an apocryphal work. Its text is fragmentary and dated from the 3rd-4th century.
2) Enoch and Melito
Enoch is an extra-biblical work. Melito is an early Christian homily. The text is from the 4th century.
These texts are uniquely significant, as they contain an early witness to rare works for which only a handful of copies have survived, and in the case of Jannes and Jambres, this is the only Greek manuscript known to exist.
Visit the manuscript page to view these new images from Dublin.

News from the The Annotated Corpus of Luwian Texts (ACLT)

 Have you taken the AWOL User Survey?

From "Ilya Yakubovich" <sogdiana783@gmail.com>:
The Annotated Corpus of Luwian Texts (ACLT), available for public use at <http://web-corpora.net/LuwianCorpus/search/>, has now been updated to includes the analysis of Luwian cuneiform texts published in Die keilschrift-luwischen Texte in Umschrift (StBoT 30) by Frank Starke. The Iron Age Luwian texts published since the appearance of the Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions (CHLI) by J. David Hawkins have also been included in the new version of the corpus.

The interface of the corpus contains the provisional Luwian glossaries, whose lemmata can be used as entries for automated search. For practical reasons, the glossaries to the cuneiform and hieroglyphic corpora are given separately, even though they reflect essentially the same language. I The narrow transliteration of the hieroglyphic texts used in the corpus generally follows the system of the CHLI but incorporates several modifications reflecting the recent progress in the Luwian Studies. The narrow transliteration of the cuneiform texts reflects the conventions of StBoT 30 and its computer adaptation by H. Craig Melchert. Note that the present corpus, as a rule, does not contain isolated Luwian forms occurring in Hittite texts.

This project has been completed with the assistance of a research grant of the Corpus Linguistics Program sponsored by the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Dr. Ilya Yakubovich acted as the principal investigator of the project, whose team consisted of Dr. Timoofey Arkhangelskiy, Mr. Sergey Boroday, and Dr. Alexei Kassian.

Queries and corrections of both linguistic and technical errors will be warmly welcomed.
For linguistic issues, please contact Ilya Yakubovich (sogdiana783@gmail.com).
For possible problems with computer interface, please contact Timofey Arkhangelskiy (timarkh@gmail.com).

Khirbat en-Nahas Project خربة النحاس

Have you taken the AWOL User Survey?

Khirbat en-Nahas Project خربة النحاس 
As a part of the Edom Lowlands Regional Archaeology Project the UCSD Levantine Archaeology Lab under the direction of Prof. Thomas Levy, has excavated three seasons at Khirbat en-Nahas (KEN). This study of Iron Age state formation in southern Jordan is deeply rooted in three conceptual frameworks: a) general anthropological theory concerning processes of secondary state formation and the evolution of social power, b) historical models concerning the Iron Age based on Anthropology, Biblical and extra-Biblical sources, and c) Middle Range theory that aims at linking raw archaeological data with more complex generalizations and conclusions about the past based on the hard archaeological evidence retrieved from the excavations. Fundamentally, the research was a response to the unsolved problem of who controlled metal production at this key Levantine site during the Iron Age, a period that follows the collapse of many of the Late Bronze Age civilizations in the eastern Mediterranean region. Recent field work at KEN and limited AMS radiocarbon dating have pushed back the dates for the Iron Age in Edom some 200 to 400 years earlier than previously thought (Levy et al 2004, 2005; Higham et al 2005). This has opened up new research questions that challenge models that explain the emergence of the Edomite state (i.e. core-civilization (Assyrian) dominance over Edom vs. local peer polity interaction with neighboring statelets such as Israel, Judah, Moab and others).
Field Directors
Illustrator
Research Team Members
Extent
1365 digital objects.
Publication
Levy TE, Najjar M, and Ben-Yosef E, editors. 2014. New Insights into the Iron Age Archaeology of Edom, Southern Jordan - Surveys, Excavations and Research from the Edom Lowlands Regional Archaeology Project (ELRAP). Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press UCLA.
Preferred Citation
Levy, Thomas E.; UC San Diego Levantine Archaeology Laboratory (2014): Khirbat en-Nahas Project. UC San Diego Library Digital Collections. http://dx.doi.org/10.6075/J0WD3XHP
Scope And Content
Since 1997, the UC San Diego Levantine Archaeology Laboratory has worked closely with the Department of Antiquities of Jordan on a deep-time study of the role of mining and metallurgy over nine thousand years from the Neolithic period to Islamic times – in Jordan’s Faynan district, some 50 km south of the Dead Sea. Faynan, located near the beautiful Dana Royal Society for the Conservation of Nature Biosphere Reserve, is home to one of the world’s best preserved ancient copper mining and metallurgy districts. The UCSD project is called the Edom Lowlands Regional Archaeology Project, or ELRAP. ELRAP is special because of its focus on developing and using a high-tech, on-site digital archaeology system. Through the project students have gained extensive experience not only participating in archaeological survey and excavation, but also mastering an array of digital survey and recording tools. There is also a strong daily field laboratory component to the research that includes analysis of ceramics, zooarchaeology, archaeometallurgy, lithics, digital photography, GIS and more.

The excavated material from KEN consists primarily of ceramics and material associated with the process of copper production, including slag, furnace fragments, tuyere pipes and copper left behind. Other special finds include scarabs, beads and other objects related to daily life at KEN. The digital collection consists of the spatial data collected during excavation, descriptions of important finds, illustrations, photographs, video, three-dimensional scans of objects and the site, and spectrographic data.
Location Of Originals
The physical collection is on permanent loan from Jordan to the Levantine Archaeology Lab at UC San Diego.
Formats
View formats within this collection
Topics
Related Resource
Repository
  • UCSD Research Data Collections

Juan Garcés (Digitised Manuscripts Blog)

Collaboration and Customisation: The Evolution of a Royal Book

As we draw to the end of Paris fashion week, let us turn to a manuscript that exudes the best of Parisian style. The haute couture of book illumination, this glorious Book of Hours showcases the work of the French capital’s most in-demand fifteenth-century illuminators. Miniature of the Visitation by...

The Tesserae Project Blog

Presentation at eRome Workshop in the Netherlands

Neil gave a presentation on Tesserae at the eRome International Workshop on Digital Humanities and Rome held in Wassenaar, Netherlands, on March 4, 2015. The conference program is here.

Archeomatica: Tecnologie per i Beni Culturali

Gli argomenti del Forum TECHNOLOGYforALL 2015

Il Comitato organizzativo del Forum TECHNOLOGYforALL, anche sulla base di sollecitazioni provenienti dai numerosi lettori dei vari canali di comunicazione della mediaGEO, dalle aziende e dagli enti, ha definito i temi principali che daranno vita a sessioni tematiche specifiche del Forum. Alcuni temi sono specifici di una Conferenza, mentre altri sono condivisi dalle tre Conferenze.

Frane e alluvioni: ISPRA e ISCR insieme per la tutela del patrimonio culturale

Si è svolto il 3 marzo 2015 a Roma il Convegno "Ambiente e Beni Culturali" organizzato per presentare i risultati di anni di studi e ricerche frutto della collaborazione tra l'Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale (ISPRA) e l'Istituto Superiore per la Conservazione ed il Restauro. Pubblichiamo il comunicato stampa diffuso al termine del Convegno che mostra i dati relativi al rischio sismico ed idrogeologico e degli effetti dell'inquinamento atmosferico del patrimonio culturale diffuso sul territorio italiano.

Ancient World Bloggers Group

waugh

Attitudes to Digital Data Sharing within Archaeology
This survey is for users of digital archaeological data services. It is an attempt to gain a snapshot of the archaeological community’s current attitude towards certain digital data sharing practices and tools. How familiar are archaeologists with the practicalities and advantages of Open Access and Open Data practice? Is Linked Data a methodology that the community might consider using at some stage in the future? Or perhaps it is already very much in use today? Is there such a thing as the Semantic Web for archaeologists and if not, why not?
This survey has been compiled by Frank Lynam as part of his doctoral research as a member of the Digital Arts and Humanities PhD programme at Trinity College Dublin.

|http://linkedarc.net/surveys/arch-datasharing | Join the Yahoo! Contributor Network

Bill Caraher (The New Archaeology of the Mediterranean World)

The Man Camp Dialogues

Last year the inestimable Bret Weber and the local icon Tom Isern co-wrote a North Dakota Humanities Council grant to support a series of conversations in communities across western North Dakota about workforce housing. 

The first stop will be Killdeer, ND where I’ll be joined by Emily Guerin, Richard Rothaus, and Tom Isern in our first “Man Camp Dialogue.” This is particularly fitting because Killdeer has had some interesting press lately about their efforts to adapt to new housing needs.

Tom Isern and I were on Prairie Public Radio’s Main Street on Monday talking about our project.

If you’re planning to attend the forum of want to read more about it, we’ve published a short study guide which you can download here or purchase in paper here.

The good folks at the Dunn County Historical Society have also provided us with a great press release which I’ve included below:

3 1 15 Man Camp photo P1090565

RESIDENTS INVITED TO MARCH 8 MAN CAMP PUBLIC FORUM:

Be part of the community conversation! Hear what your neighbors have to say!

March 2, 2015 (Killdeer, ND)—The Dunn County Historical Society welcomes scholars from the University of North Dakota’s Man Camp Project to the High Plains Cultural Center in Killdeer on Sunday, March 8, 1 – 3 p.m. Researchers will share findings from a two-year study on the temporary housing systems that have sprung up throughout western North Dakota to shelter Oil Patch workers. As part of the public forum, officially known as “The Man Camp Dialogues,” audience members are invited to ask questions and share observations. Panelists include Project Research Associate Dr. Richard M. Rothaus; Co-Primary Investigator William Caraher and Emily Guerin, Inside Energy’s North Dakota reporter. 

“The North Dakota Man Camp Project has reached the point in development when it is ready to engage in conversations to generate more questions and more insights,” said Public Forum Project Leader Tom Isern. “We encourage the voices of those directly living the history of the Boom. Everyone is welcome to contribute.”

Man camp research shows similarities to towns and state’s historical agricultural and settlement patterns Rothaus and Caraher have been touring man camps and documenting observations about the camps’ environments. Some of their findings have been surprising, considering the often underpopulated and underserved areas where the man camps are built.

“Overall, they are pretty clean,” said Rothaus. “Not as clean as I would keep my yard, and there are a few bad neighbors who are terrible slobs, but the camps are as clean as one can expect from people working long hours with irregular services. The big camps, like Capital Lodge, are spotless.”

Many man camps resemble other, if less temporary, communities in North Dakota. “I think people will be surprised to think about how temporary workforce housing sites are similar to small towns, suburban subdivisions or even small cities that dot the landscape both here in North Dakota and across the United States,” said Caraher. “The immediate impression of workforce housing might be different, but once we peel back some stereotypes and look at what folks are really trying to do in these settlements, we’ll begin to see that things are more similar than different.”

The Bakken Boom may encompass the largest and most dramatic industrial oil and gas activity that many North Dakotans have witnessed and lived through. But, said researchers, crew camps have always played a role in settling and developing the country, especially in the 19th-century American West. 

“The continued development of this practice into the 21st century is hardly surprising as remote locations like the sparsely settled counties of western North Dakota continue to pose logistical and economic challenges for resource extraction,” said documents generated by The Man Camp Project. “Clustered outside or around the fringes of the longstanding towns in the area, the temporary settlements represent the practical needs of an itinerant workforce.”

Boom not easy for anyone; public forum welcomes all Bakken voices Although Caraher and Rothaus are quick to say their research doesn’t provide answers, one thing they found is certain: Along with great prosperity and opportunity, the Bakken Boom has also created human hardship and societal challenges.

“We all are living in a world thrust upon us,” said Rothaus. “Residents have an oil boom to contend with, whether they want it or not. Oil workers, driven by economic necessity, have descended upon a place they didn’t know existed and struggle with the boom as well. Opinions about the boom vary widely, but what we do share is the life experience of crowded stores, high prices, traffic and lots and lots of people coming and going. Few would choose to do it this way, but we are all here anyway.” 

Generating new avenues of research and helping people make informed decisions about the boom in general and man camps specifically is the point of the March 8 public forum in Killdeer.

“Our research was never meant to be the source of singular authority on workforce housing, but part of the conversation,” said Caraher. “We’d like as many people in that conversation as possible!”

Bill Flaget, president of the Dunn County Historical Society, agrees: “This is an important opportunity for Dunn County residents to learn about and comment on the effects that man camps are having on their communities,” he said. “We are proud to work with the North Dakota Humanities Council to bring this event to Dunn County.”

This event is hosted by the Dunn County Historical Society and funded by the North Dakota Humanities Council. It is free and open to the public. Refreshments served. To learn more: http://heritagerenewal.org/mancamps/dialogues.htm and https://www.facebook.com/events/335047293367044    


Archeomatica: Tecnologie per i Beni Culturali

APR per il territorio, i beni culturali e l’ambiente, Conferenza a Roma

E’ boom per l’uso dei droni nell’osservazione e nella gestione del territorio in Italia. Geometri, architetti, ingegneri e addirittura geologi e archeologi fanno a gara nell’utilizzare queste nuove macchine volanti per le proprie attività. Nonostante i limiti introdotti dal Regolamento dell’ENAC sugli Aeromobili a Pilotaggio Remoto (APR), sarebbero già oltre un migliaio i professionisti che a matita e compasso hanno affiancato le opportunità offerte da sofisticati sensori imbarcati su droni ad ala fissa e rotante. Una vera rivoluzione, che potrebbe cambiare il volto di molte professioni.

Analisi TAC individuano un monaco mummificato all'interno di una statua di Buddha

E' stato identificato all'interno di una statua di Buddha datata più di 1000 anni fa il corpo di un monaco buddista privato degli organi interni ed in posizione di meditazione. La scoperta che sta facendo il giro del mondo è stata possibile mediante analisi TAC ai raggi-x realizzata da ricercatori olandesi a seguito della richiesta da parte del Drents Museum, in Olanda. 

Digital Humanities Universität Leipzig

Getting to open data for Classical Greek and Latin: breaking old habits and undoing the damage — a call for comment!

Gregory Crane
Professor of Classics and Winnick Family Chair of Technology and Entrepreneurship
Tufts University

Alexander von Humboldt Professor of Digital Humanities
Open Access Officer
University of Leipzig

March 4, 2015

Philologists must for at least two reasons open up the textual data upon which they base their work. First, researchers need to be able to download, modify and redistribute their textual data if they are to fully exploit both new methods that center around algorithmic analysis (e.g., corpus linguistics, computational linguistics, text mining, and various applications of machine learning) and new scholarly products and practices that computational methods enable (e.g., on-going and decentralized production of micro-publications by scholars from around the world, as well as scalable evaluation systems to facilitate contributions from, and learning by, citizen scientists). In some cases, issues of privacy may come into play (e.g., where we study Greek and Latin data produced by our students) but our textual editions of, and associated annotations on, long-dead authors do not fall into this category. Second, open data is essential if researchers working with historical languages such as Classical Greek and Latin are to realize either their obligation to conduct the most effective (as well as transparent) research and or their obligation to advance the role that those languages can play in the intellectual life of society as a whole. It is not enough to make our 100 EUR monographs available under an Open Access license. We must also make as accessible as possible the primary sources upon which those monographs depend.

This blog post addresses two barriers that prevent students of historical languages such as Classical Greek and Latin from shifting to a fully open intellectual ecosystem: (1) the practice of giving control of scholarly work to commercial entities that then use their monopoly rights to generate revenue and (2) the legacy rights over critical editions that scholars have already handed over to commercial entities. The field has the rights, the skills, and the labor so that it can immediately and permanently address the first challenge. The second challenge is much less tractable. We may never be able to place recent work in a form where it can fully support new scholarship. That form includes not only the rights that restrict its distribution and, often, the digital format in which textual editions have been produced (e.g., where editors used word processing files rather than best practices such as well-implemented Text Encoding Initiative XML markup). Both the rights and the format together make it unlikely that we will be able in the immediate future (if ever) to make recent critical editions fully available (under a CC-BY-SA license, with TEI XML markup representing the logical structure of both the reconstructed text and the textual notes). The question before us is to determine how much we can in the immediate future recover for the full range of scholarly use and public discourse.

First, the decision to stop handing over ownership of new textual data (and especially any textual data produced with any significant measure of public funding) is, in 2015, a purely political one. There is no practical reason not to make this change immediately. If it takes editors an extra six months or a year (and it should not) because they need to learn how to produce a digital edition, the delay is insignificant in comparison to the damage that scholars suffer when they hand over control of the reconstructed text for 25 years and of the textual notes, introduction and other materials for 70 years after their death.

The Text Encoding Initiative began publishing interoperable methods for machine actionable digital editions in the late 1980s. Students of Classical Greek and Latin, the largest community of historical philologists, have already all the resources in expertise and infrastructure with which to conduct this shift immediately. The second problem is recovering, insofar as possible, textual data that researchers have already given over to commercial interests which, in turn, exploit monopoly ownership to generate revenue. How many textual decisions in this commercial zone do we need to reference within the open data upon which we base our analysis of Greek and Latin and the cultures that these languages directly influenced? This blog post proposes a two-fold strategy (1) beginning a series of openly licensed (CC-BY-SA) textual commentaries, that are aligned to openly licensed editions and to which members of the community can suggest inclusion of important new editorial choices or conjectures only available in editions controlled by commercial interests; (2) identifying, if absolutely necessary, a small list of editions that commercial entities control but that are of such compelling importance that funding should be solicited to buy the rights to digitize, markup with TEI XML, and distribute their contents.

Many traditional scholars may argue that we should preserve the present system (1) because only specialists in Greek and Latin philology need access to new editions and (2) because students of Greek and Latin have no need of the computational methods that require open data for their full expression as instruments of scholarship. Scholars are free to argue that the primary goal of humanities research is to enable specialist publication along small, effectively closed networks of intellectual exchange, that the results of our work on Greek and Latin do not really have enough broader impact to warrant worrying about open access and open data, that the study of historical languages does not require that researchers have the ability to download, analyze, modify and redistribute textual data, and that publicly funded scholarship is not ultimately answerable to the public which provides that funding.

From a pragmatic point of view, such arguments would be problematic for anyone who wishes to replace retiring faculty in Greek or Latin, to attract the most ambitious minds to the study of these languages or to justify research support for the study of Greek and Latin from any private foundation or governmental agency that could invest its research support elsewhere. There is never enough money to support all the research that would advance human understanding, much less so-called STEM disciplines (science, technology, engineering and mathematics — the corresponding German acronym is MINT) that materially advance the economic prosperity and biological health of society. But the privilege of academic freedom and the right of free expression that we enjoy in nations such as Germany and the United States exist so that we can follow our principles and add our opinions to public debate.

There are two fundamental reasons for scholars to make openly useful both their conclusions (open access publications) and the data upon which those conclusions depend.

The first bears most directly upon those of us who receive most, if not all all, of our salary and research support either from public money or from private foundations that require us to make our results available under an open license. There is our obligation as humanists to advance the intellectual life of humanity. Of course, in 2015, this point of view is finding its way into regulations of government research funding in various countries while private foundations increasingly insist that the results from work that they fund be published under an open license. Ironically, the smallest and the largest disciplines seem to have adapted most rapidly to this much more open model of research. Students of Greek papyrology, for example, have already made the transition to open data and on-going, decentralized editing — those who feel that commercial entities provide the only channel by which to publish Greek and Latin textual editions need first to understand fully the infrastructure to which the papyrologists already have access (http://papyri.info/). In fact, the services at http://papyri.info/ go beyond what editors need if they wish to create individual, single-authored, static editions. For editors of Latin editions, help is on the way from the Digital Latin Library Project. If editors wish to work on their own to create editions of Greek and Latin texts, they should buy a TEI-aware XML editor and learn how to produce a modern edition. Anyone smart enough to edit an edition of Greek and Latin is smart enough to understand the necessary TEI XML (or EpiDoc subset of TEI XML: epidoc.sourceforge.net/). My colleagues at the Humboldt Chair of Digital Humanities are also there to do what we can to help.

Second, there is the scholarly need for open data. This need is not new. More than a decade ago, pioneering philologists badgered me to release the textual data that we had accumulated at Perseus. Licenses for private use were not enough. They argued tirelessly that they needed, as part of their fundamental research, the right to analyze, modify, and then redistribute some or all of those texts in their altered form. After dragging my feet for years, I finally began to open up the TEI XML source for Perseus texts. The initial release of the TEI XML Greek and Latin texts under a CC-BY-SA-NC license (now simplified to a CC-BY-SA license) took place in March 2006, almost a decade ago. The Classicists who demanded that open data — Chris Blackwell, Gabby Bodard, Helma Dik, Tom Elliott, Ross Scaife, and Neel Smith, among others — were pioneers and earned for themselves by their visionary work a permanent place in the history of Greco-Roman studies. In 2015, we are beyond the vision thing. We Greek and Latin Philologists are playing catch-up as a field as we struggle to integrate into our work the best methods available for analyzing textual data.

We have gone beyond the point where we can any longer reasonably argue that computational methods are unimportant, or even optional, instruments within Greek and Latin philology as a whole. Not every professional student of Greek and Latin will master the foundational new methods already available to us from fields such as corpus linguistics, computational linguistics, text mining and various applications of machine learning. But those who do master the results of such new fields will play a crucial role in determining what all students of Greek and Latin at all levels will be able to do in their personal learning and published research. Open textual data is a foundational need for modern scholarship. The question before us is how to free ourselves from our dependence upon closed data and to establish a comprehensive, open, extensible textual space for the study of Greek and Latin. It is time to return, yet again, ad fontes — back to the sources.

It is not difficult to see how the field of Greek and Latin can, and will shift, so that new textual editions appear in proper TEI XML under an open license (ideally CC-BY-SA). For commercial — and especially for for-profit — companies, the shift to an open publication model simply reflects a shift in business models and the most profitable presses have already begun to build new (and reportedly quite profitable) open access tracks. Of course, the editors of Greek and Latin as a whole are perfectly capable of providing the editorial support for each other — the ability to write is a selling point of liberal arts degrees and professors of Greek and Latin would be ill-advised to argue that they needed professional editors in the same way as their colleagues in Computer Science or Physics. We can also build publishing workflows that simplify the use of TEI XML (such as the Leiden plus front end that papyrologists have been using for years). But such a streamlined system is a convenience, not a necessity.

The real problem is, of course, one of academic politics. Many faculty believe that they need to publish their work under an established corporate brand name if they are to receive formal academic credit. In some institutions, this belief may even be true, but I think that many faculty would find that their administrations were not only supportive but relieved to see their humanities faculty taking a stand on behalf of open access and open data, especially where faculty are public servants and/or their universities have strong policies in support of Open Access and open data.

I am confident that the administrations at Tufts University (where I am in the department of Classics) and at Leipzig, for example, (where I am the Open Access officer) would enthusiastically work with any department that wanted to establish a framework for fairly assessing an edition that was published under a CC-BY-SA license. If anything, editors at these institutions would have a chance to earn even more prestige by taking an (apparent) risk to advance the role of Greek and Latin in the intellectual life of society beyond specialist researchers and to enable Greek and Latin philology to exploit evolving new forms of research based on progress in various computational fields. When senior faculty with permanent positions hand over their work to corporate entities, the situation is much more problematic. Certainly, as a senior professor who is not subject to existential pressures that junior scholars may feel, I don’t see how I can justify handing my work over to commercial entities. I feel that I have an obligation to help the next generation have the freedom to keep the results of their work open and available both to the intellectual life of society as a whole and to the most advanced analytical methods available to researchers.

But even when our field does the right thing for scholarship and society (and I would be disingenuous if I put it any other way), we face the consequences of our past actions. Commercial interests now control a substantial amount of the work that we have done, whether or not we did that work with public money or even if we may have ignored clear conditions on research funding that the results needed to be available under an open access license. (A review of funding decisions at various agencies may reveal a systematic pattern where domain experts voted to fund research projects that they knew would be handed over to commercial interests even when the regulations governing that funding prioritized, even where they did not explicitly mandate, publishing research results under an open license).

I was fortunate in that I began my own work developing corpora after legal issues began to emerge from the first efforts at sharing digital corpora. When humanists first began developing textual databases in the 1970s and 1980s, scholars had little understanding of copyright law (which, one could argue, really means that copyright law often does not reflect scholarly standards). Many assumed that the reconstructed texts in Classical Greek and Latin critical editions are in the public domain. The fact that a preponderance of experts in the field made this decision — in fact, operated under this assumption — provides evidence about what copyright law should dictate. In fact, explicit legislation does enable editors in some countries to exercise monopoly control over reconstructed texts for a period of time. I don’t know any editors who personally use that right to restrict access to their work — all the editors I know want their work to circulate as widely as possible. But editors sign contracts that give commercial publishers exclusive rights to their work. These publishers have lawyers and, if the perceived loss justifies the investment in legal fees, they can sue individual scholars. Even when textual data is in the public domain, commercial vendors (whether belonging to a for-profit corporation or a non-profit university) can (and often will) sue those who redistribute that public domain data on the basis of contract law. We work hard to make sure that we respect both copyright and contract law.

Given sufficient funding, the following categories of data can be digitized and made available as open data under the kind of CC license upon which modern philology must depend:

Reconstructed texts: Reconstructed texts constitute the running text as reconstructed in an edition without accompanying textual notes, modern language translations introduction, etc. We can use scientific editions from Germany that were published 25 or more years ago (thus, in early 2015 we can use scientific editions published through the beginning of 1990). The EU has passed a regulation allowing its member nations to exert such copyright for up to 30 years but Germany has not taken advantage of this EU opportunity nor has any other major producer of Greek and Latin texts. For pragmatic purposes, we will initially assume that every other nation but Germany (where support for open access and open data have strong public and political support) is liable to enact such a law. We will thus focus in 2015 on digitizing European editions outside of Germany published through 1985, in 2016 through 1986 etc. Here the goal is to have as many TEI XML transcriptions as possible and to help researchers visualize the degree to which different editions differ and to be able to compare different editions.
Textual notes: The argument has been made that the textual notes are not part of the reconstructed text and constitute a separate copyrightable work. Insofar as textual notes are a scholarly activity, they should aspire to be an annotated database and thus should be receivng only 15 years of protection under EU database regulations (http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/prot-databases/). The argument has also been made that the textual notes not only do not belong to a scientific edition but also constitute another form of creative expression and that commercial publishers should be able to monopolize them for the life of the editor plus 70 years. We will, for now, focus on mining textual notes from editions where the editor died 70 or more years ago. In practice, that means that we are working with the apparatus criticus of editions published in the 1920s and 1930s. Here our goal is to have a maximally clean searchable text but not to add substantive TEI XML markup that captures the structure of the textual notes — the structure of these notes tend to be complicated and inconsistent. Our pragmatic goal is to support “image front searching,” so that scholars can find words in the textual notes and then see the original page images.

Given the legal constraints outlined above and assuming that we had the resources to create machine actionable versions of all publicly accessible textual data, what is the best way of representing the data commercial licenses restrict?

Strategy one: Support advanced graduate students and a handful of supervisory faculty to go through reviews of recent editions, identifying those editorial decisions that were deemed most significant. The output of this work would be an initial CC-BY-SA series of machine-actionable commentaries that could automatically flag all passages in the CC-BY-SA editions where copyrighted editions made significant decisions. In effect, we would be creating a new textual review series. Because the textual commentaries would be open and available under a CC-BY-SA, members of the community could suggest additions to them or create new expanded versions or create completely new, but interoperable, textual commentaries that could be linked to the CC-BY-SA texts.

Here the goal is to create an initial set of data about textual decisions in copyrighted editions and a framework that members of the community can extend. If members of the community feel that important textual data should be made available, then they can make it available, they can do so. If no one feels that it is important to make the data available, then the data is, by definition, not that important. The plan is to create a self-regulating environment. An open framework can evolve as members of the community wish. In this plan, we start a light-weight, easily expanded and duplicated process that others can copy.

We can summarize this as a Darwinian strategy. We may have to take a step and lose some more recent textual data to open up the overall corpus, but the lost textual data is not, itself, subject to copyright (copyright protects original expression). The hypothesis is that an open field will outperform a closed field and that the open field will replace what it considers to be lost textual data and ultimately (perhaps very quickly) outperformed the closed system.

This strategy has at least two advantages. First, if funding were secured, that funding could help rising Greek and Latin philologists perform the task of creating the initial textual commentaries, thus immersing a new generation in the basic methods of representing textual data in a machine actionable form (and giving them a position where they have an opportunity to learn quite a bit of Greek and/or Latin). Second, we do not need to create a comprehensive set of textual commentaries. We need to create a critical mass that demonstrates the utility of such commentaries.

Strategy two: How many editions that are owned by commercial entities are so crucial to the mainstream study of Greek and Latin that it is worth trying to negotiate the rights and expend the time/money to produce CC-licensed TEI XML versions? The upper bound for such a purchase might be the cost of paying for production of a new open access book (up to 10.000 British pounds). Since commercial publishers have published several hundred editions in the last 25 or 30 years, paying for the rights for all recent editions would cost millions of euros and is clearly not a reasonable option. If publishers do not offer reasonable terms and the new editions are of critical importance, then members of the community will simply have to create new editions that integrate the most valuable findings from the restricted editions — that is, after all, the sort of thing that we are paid to do. But it might be possible to justify purchasing the rights to a few.

What editions might warrant such special treatment and why?

Conversely, how worthwhile is it for us to worry about editions published after c. 1985? Would it be better to focus on providing comprehensive coverage of editions through 1985 with the assumption that if the recent data is sufficiently important, then we can let members of the community fill in the gaps?

Ironically, I think that the best way to liberate textual data from corporate control is to demonstrate that life will go on without it and thus to destroy its value as a revenue-generating asset. We can use the reconstructed texts from Germany through 1990 and from the rest of Europe at least through 1985. While much has been done since then and it would be a shame if we could not immediately use it in our analysis of the ancient world, I became a professor in 1985 and I do not think that the quality of the textual editions available to us was a major limiting factor on the quality of our research at the time. We can start the process of identifying significant textual decisions in copyrighted editions. Where editors have produce radically new editions, we can try to secure the rights but the best way to free commercialized controlled texts is to move forward with what we have.

Members of the community are, of course, free to make a case that research funding from private and public sources should be used to subsidize commercial services or even websites that provide free services but do not make their data available. Those who feel this way should make the case as fully as possible. I have heard the argument that we must under no circumstances go backwards and lose access to the most up-to-date texts but, unfortunately, we have already lost control over that access and have done so for years after it was possible that we could do otherwise (the Text Encoding Initiative was documenting methods for machine actionable editions in the late 1980s) and after generalized models for open licenses had appeared (CreativeCommons.org released its first licenses in 2002). We could have acted differently a decade ago and we have, for the most part, not chosen to produce editions that are modern in format and accessible to a global audience. If we think that specialists at well-funded academic institutions alone need access to the best textual data, we should express that position clearly so that the federally funded agencies and private foundations know where we stand.

I don’t see an easy solution for rescuing data that we have given to commercial organizations but we should hear the arguments and proposals — and then act. Business as usual simply digs us into a deeper hole. Even if some of us may disagree with the case as a whole, a well-articulated case for sticking with privatized textual data may more clearly articulate issues that we need to address in shifting to an open philology.

Please send your suggestions to crane@informatik.uni-leipzig.de — or, better still, send a link to a public version of your thoughts. I will summarize initial suggestions in a subsequent blog post in May 2015.

Perseus Digital Library Updates

Getting to open data for Classical Greek and Latin: breaking old habits and undoing the damage — a call for comment!

Gregory Crane
Professor of Classics and Winnick Family Chair of Technology and Entrepreneurship
Tufts University

Alexander von Humboldt Professor of Digital Humanities
Open Access Officer
University of Leipzig

March 4, 2015

Philologists must for at least two reasons open up the textual data upon which they base their work. First, researchers need to be able to download, modify and redistribute their textual data if they are to fully exploit both new methods that center around algorithmic analysis (e.g., corpus linguistics, computational linguistics, text mining, and various applications of machine learning) and new scholarly products and practices that computational methods enable (e.g., on-going and decentralized production of micro-publications by scholars from around the world, as well as scalable evaluation systems to facilitate contributions from, and learning by, citizen scientists). In some cases, issues of privacy may come into play (e.g., where we study Greek and Latin data produced by our students) but our textual editions of, and associated annotations on, long-dead authors do not fall into this category. Second, open data is essential if researchers working with historical languages such as Classical Greek and Latin are to realize either their obligation to conduct the most effective (as well as transparent) research and or their obligation to advance the role that those languages can play in the intellectual life of society as a whole. It is not enough to make our 100 EUR monographs available under an Open Access license. We must also make as accessible as possible the primary sources upon which those monographs depend.

This blog post addresses two barriers that prevent students of historical languages such as Classical Greek and Latin from shifting to a fully open intellectual ecosystem: (1) the practice of giving control of scholarly work to commercial entities that then use their monopoly rights to generate revenue and (2) the legacy rights over critical editions that scholars have already handed over to commercial entities. The field has the rights, the skills, and the labor so that it can immediately and permanently address the first challenge. The second challenge is much less tractable. We may never be able to place recent work in a form where it can fully support new scholarship. That form includes not only the rights that restrict its distribution and, often, the digital format in which textual editions have been produced (e.g., where editors used word processing files rather than best practices such as well-implemented Text Encoding Initiative XML markup). Both the rights and the format together make it unlikely that we will be able in the immediate future (if ever) to make recent critical editions fully available (under a CC-BY-SA license, with TEI XML markup representing the logical structure of both the reconstructed text and the textual notes). The question before us is to determine how much we can in the immediate future recover for the full range of scholarly use and public discourse.

First, the decision to stop handing over ownership of new textual data (and especially any textual data produced with any significant measure of public funding) is, in 2015, a purely political one. There is no practical reason not to make this change immediately. If it takes editors an extra six months or a year (and it should not) because they need to learn how to produce a digital edition, the delay is insignificant in comparison to the damage that scholars suffer when they hand over control of the reconstructed text for 25 years and of the textual notes, introduction and other materials for 70 years after their death.

The Text Encoding Initiative began publishing interoperable methods for machine actionable digital editions in the late 1980s (Historical Editing was already a topic at the 1987 Poughkeepsie Planning meeting that laid the foundations for the TEI: http://www.tei-c.org/Vault/ED/edp01.htm). Students of Classical Greek and Latin, the largest community of historical philologists, have already all the resources in expertise and infrastructure with which to conduct this shift immediately. The second problem is recovering, insofar as possible, textual data that researchers have already given over to commercial interests which, in turn, exploit monopoly ownership to generate revenue. How many textual decisions in this commercial zone do we need to reference within the open data upon which we base our analysis of Greek and Latin and the cultures that these languages directly influenced? This blog post proposes a two-fold strategy (1) beginning a series of openly licensed (CC-BY-SA) textual commentaries, that are aligned to openly licensed editions and to which members of the community can suggest inclusion of important new editorial choices or conjectures only available in editions controlled by commercial interests; (2) identifying, if absolutely necessary, a small list of editions that commercial entities control but that are of such compelling importance that funding should be solicited to buy the rights to digitize, markup with TEI XML, and distribute their contents.

Many traditional scholars may argue that we should preserve the present system (1) because only specialists in Greek and Latin philology need access to new editions and (2) because students of Greek and Latin have no need of the computational methods that require open data for their full expression as instruments of scholarship. Scholars are free to argue that the primary goal of humanities research is to enable specialist publication along small, effectively closed networks of intellectual exchange, that the results of our work on Greek and Latin do not really have enough broader impact to warrant worrying about open access and open data, that the study of historical languages does not require that researchers have the ability to download, analyze, modify and redistribute textual data, and that publicly funded scholarship is not ultimately answerable to the public which provides that funding.

From a pragmatic point of view, such arguments would be problematic for anyone who wishes to replace retiring faculty in Greek or Latin, to attract the most ambitious minds to the study of these languages or to justify research support for the study of Greek and Latin from any private foundation or governmental agency that could invest its research support elsewhere. There is never enough money to support all the research that would advance human understanding, much less so-called STEM disciplines (science, technology, engineering and mathematics — the corresponding German acronym is MINT) that materially advance the economic prosperity and biological health of society. But the privilege of academic freedom and the right of free expression that we enjoy in nations such as Germany and the United States exist so that we can follow our principles and add our opinions to public debate.

There are two fundamental reasons for scholars to make openly useful both their conclusions (open access publications) and the data upon which those conclusions depend.

The first bears most directly upon those of us who receive most, if not all all, of our salary and research support either from public money or from private foundations that require us to make our results available under an open license. There is our obligation as humanists to advance the intellectual life of humanity. Of course, in 2015, this point of view is finding its way into regulations of government research funding in various countries while private foundations increasingly insist that the results from work that they fund be published under an open license. Ironically, the smallest and the largest disciplines seem to have adapted most rapidly to this much more open model of research. Students of Greek papyrology, for example, have already made the transition to open data and on-going, decentralized editing — those who feel that commercial entities provide the only channel by which to publish Greek and Latin textual editions need first to understand fully the infrastructure to which the papyrologists already have access (http://papyri.info/). In fact, the services at http://papyri.info/ go beyond what editors need if they wish to create individual, single-authored, static editions. For editors of Latin editions, help is on the way from the Digital Latin Library Project. If editors wish to work on their own to create editions of Greek and Latin texts, they should buy a TEI-aware XML editor and learn how to produce a modern edition. Anyone smart enough to edit an edition of Greek and Latin is smart enough to understand the necessary TEI XML (or EpiDoc subset of TEI XML: epidoc.sourceforge.net/). My colleagues at the Humboldt Chair of Digital Humanities are also there to do what we can to help.

Second, there is the scholarly need for open data. This need is not new. More than a decade ago, pioneering philologists badgered me to release the textual data that we had accumulated at Perseus. Licenses for private use were not enough. They argued tirelessly that they needed, as part of their fundamental research, the right to analyze, modify, and then redistribute some or all of those texts in their altered form. After dragging my feet for years, I finally began to open up the TEI XML source for Perseus texts. The initial release of the TEI XML Greek and Latin texts under a CC-BY-SA-NC license (now simplified to a CC-BY-SA license) took place in March 2006, almost a decade ago. The Classicists who demanded that open data — Chris Blackwell, Gabby Bodard, Helma Dik, Tom Elliott, Sebastian Heath, Ross Scaife, and Neel Smith, among others — were pioneers and earned for themselves by their visionary work a permanent place in the history of Greco-Roman studies. In 2015, we are beyond the vision thing. We Greek and Latin Philologists are playing catch-up as a field as we struggle to integrate into our work the best methods available for analyzing textual data.

We have gone beyond the point where we can any longer reasonably argue that computational methods are unimportant, or even optional, instruments within Greek and Latin philology as a whole. Not every professional student of Greek and Latin will master the foundational new methods already available to us from fields such as corpus linguistics, computational linguistics, text mining and various applications of machine learning. But those who do master the results of such new fields will play a crucial role in determining what all students of Greek and Latin at all levels will be able to do in their personal learning and published research. Open textual data is a foundational need for modern scholarship. The question before us is how to free ourselves from our dependence upon closed data and to establish a comprehensive, open, extensible textual space for the study of Greek and Latin. It is time to return, yet again, ad fontes — back to the sources.

It is not difficult to see how the field of Greek and Latin can, and will shift, so that new textual editions appear in proper TEI XML under an open license (ideally CC-BY-SA). For commercial — and especially for for-profit — companies, the shift to an open publication model simply reflects a shift in business models and the most profitable presses have already begun to build new (and reportedly quite profitable) open access tracks. Of course, the editors of Greek and Latin as a whole are perfectly capable of providing the editorial support for each other — the ability to write is a selling point of liberal arts degrees and professors of Greek and Latin would be ill-advised to argue that they needed professional editors in the same way as their colleagues in Computer Science or Physics. We can also build publishing workflows that simplify the use of TEI XML (such as the Leiden plus front end that papyrologists have been using for years). But such a streamlined system is a convenience, not a necessity.

The real problem is, of course, one of academic politics. Many faculty believe that they need to publish their work under an established corporate brand name if they are to receive formal academic credit. In some institutions, this belief may even be true, but I think that many faculty would find that their administrations were not only supportive but relieved to see their humanities faculty taking a stand on behalf of open access and open data, especially where faculty are public servants and/or their universities have strong policies in support of Open Access and open data.

I am confident that the administrations at Tufts University (where I am in the department of Classics) and at Leipzig, for example, (where I am the Open Access officer) would enthusiastically work with any department that wanted to establish a framework for fairly assessing an edition that was published under a CC-BY-SA license. If anything, editors at these institutions would have a chance to earn even more prestige by taking an (apparent) risk to advance the role of Greek and Latin in the intellectual life of society beyond specialist researchers and to enable Greek and Latin philology to exploit evolving new forms of research based on progress in various computational fields. When senior faculty with permanent positions hand over their work to corporate entities, the situation is much more problematic. Certainly, as a senior professor who is not subject to existential pressures that junior scholars may feel, I don’t see how I can justify handing my work over to commercial entities. I feel that I have an obligation to help the next generation have the freedom to keep the results of their work open and available both to the intellectual life of society as a whole and to the most advanced analytical methods available to researchers.

But even when our field does the right thing for scholarship and society (and I would be disingenuous if I put it any other way), we face the consequences of our past actions. Commercial interests now control a substantial amount of the work that we have done, whether or not we did that work with public money or even if we may have ignored clear conditions on research funding that the results needed to be available under an open access license. (A review of funding decisions at various agencies may reveal a systematic pattern where domain experts voted to fund research projects that they knew would be handed over to commercial interests even when the regulations governing that funding prioritized, even where they did not explicitly mandate, publishing research results under an open license).

I was fortunate in that I began my own work developing corpora after legal issues began to emerge from the first efforts at sharing digital corpora. When humanists first began developing textual databases in the 1970s and 1980s, scholars had little understanding of copyright law (which, one could argue, really means that copyright law often does not reflect scholarly standards). Many assumed that the reconstructed texts in Classical Greek and Latin critical editions are in the public domain. The fact that a preponderance of experts in the field made this decision — in fact, operated under this assumption — provides evidence about what copyright law should dictate. In fact, explicit legislation does enable editors in some countries to exercise monopoly control over reconstructed texts for a period of time. I don’t know any editors who personally use that right to restrict access to their work — all the editors I know want their work to circulate as widely as possible. But editors sign contracts that give commercial publishers exclusive rights to their work. These publishers have lawyers and, if the perceived loss justifies the investment in legal fees, they can sue individual scholars. Even when textual data is in the public domain, commercial vendors (whether belonging to a for-profit corporation or a non-profit university) can (and often will) sue those who redistribute that public domain data on the basis of contract law. We work hard to make sure that we respect both copyright and contract law.

Given sufficient funding, the following categories of data can be digitized and made available as open data under the kind of CC license upon which modern philology must depend:

Reconstructed texts: Reconstructed texts constitute the running text as reconstructed in an edition without accompanying textual notes, modern language translations introduction, etc. We can use scientific editions from Germany that were published 25 or more years ago (thus, in early 2015 we can use scientific editions published through the beginning of 1990). The EU has passed a regulation allowing its member nations to exert such copyright for up to 30 years but Germany has not taken advantage of this EU opportunity nor has any other major producer of Greek and Latin texts. For pragmatic purposes, we will initially assume that every other nation but Germany (where support for open access and open data have strong public and political support) is liable to enact such a law. We will thus focus in 2015 on digitizing European editions outside of Germany published through 1985, in 2016 through 1986 etc. Here the goal is to have as many TEI XML transcriptions as possible and to help researchers visualize the degree to which different editions differ and to be able to compare different editions.
Textual notes: The argument has been made that the textual notes are not part of the reconstructed text and constitute a separate copyrightable work. Insofar as textual notes are a scholarly activity, they should aspire to be an annotated database and thus should be receivng only 15 years of protection under EU database regulations (http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/prot-databases/). The argument has also been made that the textual notes not only do not belong to a scientific edition but also constitute another form of creative expression and that commercial publishers should be able to monopolize them for the life of the editor plus 70 years. We will, for now, focus on mining textual notes from editions where the editor died 70 or more years ago. In practice, that means that we are working with the apparatus criticus of editions published in the 1920s and 1930s. Here our goal is to have a maximally clean searchable text but not to add substantive TEI XML markup that captures the structure of the textual notes — the structure of these notes tend to be complicated and inconsistent. Our pragmatic goal is to support “image front searching,” so that scholars can find words in the textual notes and then see the original page images.

Given the legal constraints outlined above and assuming that we had the resources to create machine actionable versions of all publicly accessible textual data, what is the best way of representing the data commercial licenses restrict?

Strategy one: Support advanced graduate students and a handful of supervisory faculty to go through reviews of recent editions, identifying those editorial decisions that were deemed most significant. The output of this work would be an initial CC-BY-SA series of machine-actionable commentaries that could automatically flag all passages in the CC-BY-SA editions where copyrighted editions made significant decisions. In effect, we would be creating a new textual review series. Because the textual commentaries would be open and available under a CC-BY-SA, members of the community could suggest additions to them or create new expanded versions or create completely new, but interoperable, textual commentaries that could be linked to the CC-BY-SA texts.

Here the goal is to create an initial set of data about textual decisions in copyrighted editions and a framework that members of the community can extend. If members of the community feel that important textual data should be made available, then they can make it available, they can do so. If no one feels that it is important to make the data available, then the data is, by definition, not that important. The plan is to create a self-regulating environment. An open framework can evolve as members of the community wish. In this plan, we start a light-weight, easily expanded and duplicated process that others can copy.

We can summarize this as a Darwinian strategy. We may have to take a step and lose some more recent textual data to open up the overall corpus, but the lost textual data is not, itself, subject to copyright (copyright protects original expression). The hypothesis is that an open field will outperform a closed field and that the open field will replace what it considers to be lost textual data and ultimately (perhaps very quickly) outperformed the closed system.

This strategy has at least two advantages. First, if funding were secured, that funding could help rising Greek and Latin philologists perform the task of creating the initial textual commentaries, thus immersing a new generation in the basic methods of representing textual data in a machine actionable form (and giving them a position where they have an opportunity to learn quite a bit of Greek and/or Latin). Second, we do not need to create a comprehensive set of textual commentaries. We need to create a critical mass that demonstrates the utility of such commentaries.

Strategy two: How many editions that are owned by commercial entities are so crucial to the mainstream study of Greek and Latin that it is worth trying to negotiate the rights and expend the time/money to produce CC-licensed TEI XML versions? The upper bound for such a purchase might be the cost of paying for production of a new open access book (up to 10.000 British pounds). Since commercial publishers have published several hundred editions in the last 25 or 30 years, paying for the rights for all recent editions would cost millions of euros and is clearly not a reasonable option. If publishers do not offer reasonable terms and the new editions are of critical importance, then members of the community will simply have to create new editions that integrate the most valuable findings from the restricted editions — that is, after all, the sort of thing that we are paid to do. But it might be possible to justify purchasing the rights to a few.

What editions might warrant such special treatment and why?

Conversely, how worthwhile is it for us to worry about editions published after c. 1985? Would it be better to focus on providing comprehensive coverage of editions through 1985 with the assumption that if the recent data is sufficiently important, then we can let members of the community fill in the gaps?

Ironically, I think that the best way to liberate textual data from corporate control is to demonstrate that life will go on without it and thus to destroy its value as a revenue-generating asset. We can use the reconstructed texts from Germany through 1990 and from the rest of Europe at least through 1985. While much has been done since then and it would be a shame if we could not immediately use it in our analysis of the ancient world, I became a professor in 1985 and I do not think that the quality of the textual editions available to us was a major limiting factor on the quality of our research at the time. We can start the process of identifying significant textual decisions in copyrighted editions. Where editors have produce radically new editions, we can try to secure the rights but the best way to free commercialized controlled texts is to move forward with what we have.

Members of the community are, of course, free to make a case that research funding from private and public sources should be used to subsidize commercial services or even websites that provide free services but do not make their data available. Those who feel this way should make the case as fully as possible. I have heard the argument that we must under no circumstances go backwards and lose access to the most up-to-date texts but, unfortunately, we have already lost control over that access and have done so for years after it was possible that we could do otherwise (the Text Encoding Initiative was documenting methods for machine actionable editions in the late 1980s) and after generalized models for open licenses had appeared (CreativeCommons.org released its first licenses in 2002). We could have acted differently a decade ago and we have, for the most part, not chosen to produce editions that are modern in format and accessible to a global audience. If we think that specialists at well-funded academic institutions alone need access to the best textual data, we should express that position clearly so that the federally funded agencies and private foundations know where we stand.

I don’t see an easy solution for rescuing data that we have given to commercial organizations but we should hear the arguments and proposals — and then act. Business as usual simply digs us into a deeper hole. Even if some of us may disagree with the case as a whole, a well-articulated case for sticking with privatized textual data may more clearly articulate issues that we need to address in shifting to an open philology.

Please send your suggestions to crane@informatik.uni-leipzig.de — or, better still, send a link to a public version of your thoughts. I will summarize initial suggestions in a subsequent blog post in May 2015.

March 03, 2015

Roger Pearse (Thoughts on Antiquity, Patristics, putting things online, and more)

The Annals of Eutychius of Alexandria (10th c. AD) – chapter 12

This part of the Annals continues the history of the 4th century, interleaving material from the Greek chronographic tradition with a lost Sassanid Persian chronicle known to the author in Arabic translation.  Unfortunately the chapter ends with a curious oriental folk tale.  One wonders what Theodosius the Great would have thought of it!

1. Sabur lived for seventy-two years in all, and died. After him there reigned over the Persians Azdashīr, son of Sabur (1), for four years and died.  This was in the first year of the reign of King Constantine, son of Constantine, King of Rūm.  After him there reigned over the Persians, for five years and four months, his brother Sabur, son of Sabur (2).  This happened in the fifth year of the reign of Constantine, the son of Constantine, King of Rūm.  In the fifth year of his reign there rebelled against his brother Constans, in Rome, a general named Maghnitiyūs (3) who killed him.  When Constantine, son of Constantine, learned that his brother had been killed, he sent a large army,  killed Magnentius, together with all those who had supported him in conspiring against his brother, and appointed as his representative in Rome a man who reigned in his name.  In the seventh year of his reign there was made patriarch of Rome Marcus (4).  He held the office for two years and died.  In the ninth year of his reign there was made patriarch of Rome Būliyūs (5).  He held the seat for fifteen years and died.  In the twenty-fourth year of his reign there was made patriarch of Rome Līnāriyūs (6).  He held the office for six years and died.  In the twentieth year of his reign there was made bishop of Jerusalem Cyril (7).  He held the office for five years and fled.

2. At that time the followers of Arius and all those who professed the doctrine went to King Constantine;  after having presented their religion in a good light and expounded their doctrine in enticing colours they said: “The three hundred and eighteen bishops, who gathered at Nicaea, made a mistake and have turned away from the truth by claiming that the Son is consubstantial with the Father.  Please, order that such a thing is no longer upheld because it is an obvious mistake.”  The king agreed to their request.

3. At that time there appeared on the site of Cranion, i.e. on Golgotha, at noon, a cross of light which rose from earth to heaven, until it reached the top of the Tūr-Zaytā: (8) for the intensity of its glow even dimmed the sunlight.  All the inhabitants of Jerusalem, large and small, were spectators of this.  Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, also witnessed the phenomenon and hastened to inform the king, writing to him a letter in which he said: “In the days of your father, O blessed king, the cross of Christ, our Lord, appeared, made of stars, at noon, in the sky.  And in your days, O blessed king, there has appeared at noon, on the site of Cranion, a cross of light so intense that it exceeds that of the sun” (9).  In the same letter among other things he urged him not to welcome the doctrine of Arius and his supporters, or of his followers, because they were far from the truth and wicked, and had already been excommunicated by three hundred and eighteen bishops together with all those who professed the doctrine.  The king received willingly the letter of Cyril and rejoiced at what he had written, and turned back to the truth and decided not to accept the doctrine of Arius.

4. At that time, the doctrine of Arius had almost taken over Constantinople, Antioch, Babil, and Alexandria: the followers of the religion of Arius and the supporters of his doctrine were called Arians, from the name of Arius.  In the second year of the reign of Constantine, the son of Constantine, Cyprian was made patriarch of Antioch (10).  He was an Arian. He held the office for two years and died.  In the fourth year of his reign Blāsiyūs was made patriarch of Antioch (11).  He held the office for four years and died.  He was an Arian.  In the eighth year of his reign Ustātiyūs was made patriarch of Antioch (12).  He held the office for five years and died.  He was an Arian.  In the thirteenth year of his reign Lāwn was made patriarch of Antioch (13).  He was also an Arian.  He held the office for nine years and died.  The king then sent for Eudoxius (14), bishop of the city of Girmāna (15), and made him patriarch of Antioch.  He was a Manichaean.  He held the See of Antioch for two years.  Then the king sent him to Constantinople, where he remained for ten years and died as patriarch (16).  In the twenty-second year of his reign Athanāsiyūs was made patriarch of Antioch (17).  He was a Manichaean.  He held the office for four years and died.  In the first year of his reign, the king deposed Paul, the patriarch of Constantinople and made Eusebius patriarch of Constantinople, in his place (18).  He was a Manichaean.  He held the office for three years and died.  At his death the king reinstated in his own see the patriarch Paul, whom he had deposed.  He held the office for three years and died (19).

5. In the tenth year of his reign Macedonius was made patriarch of Constantinople (20).  He asserted that the Holy Spirit is a created being.  He held the office for ten years and died.  In his twenty-first year of his reign, the king called to Constantinople Eudoxius, Patriarch of Antioch, and appointed him patriarch of that city (21).  He was a Manichaean.  He held the office for ten years and died.  Of the population of Egypt and Alexandria, most were Arians and Manichaean.  They occupied the churches of Egypt and Alexandria and took possession of them.  Then they made a raid against Athanasius, patriarch of Alexandria, with the intention of killing him, but he managed to escape and hide.  Up to that time he had been Patriarch for ten years.  Gregory was then made Patriarch of Alexandria (22).  He was a Manichaean.  He held the office for twelve years and died.  At his death Athanasius, patriarch of Alexandria, reoccupied his own place.  He held the office for three years.  In that time there came from Constantinople to Alexandria a general named Sawīriyānūs that, being an Arian, confined Patriarch Athanasius in a place called Tībāriyādah and appointed Khurayğ  as patriarch of Alexandria (23).  He was an Arian.  He held the seat for six years.  The general Sūriyānūs then left Alexandria bound for Constantinople.  When he left Alexandria, the Melkites of the city revolted against the patriarch Gurayh and killed him and then burned his body.  Patriarch Athanasius again reoccupied his see.  At that time there was a terrible tsunami and many places and many churches of Alexandria were submerged.

6. The King Constantine, son of Constantine, died after a reign of twenty-four years.  After him reigned over Rum Julian, the apostate King (24).  This happened in the twenty-first year of the reign of Sabur, son of Sabur, king of the Persians.  This king Julian was a renegade from the Christian religion, who wanted to return people to the worship of idols and killed a large number of martyrs.  In the first year of his reign the Arians who were in Jerusalem rose against Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, with the intent to kill him.  [Cyril] fled and Heraclius was elected bishop of Jerusalem (25).  He was an Arian.  He held the office for three years and died.  In the second year of his reign Milītiyānūs was made patriarch of Antioch (26).  He was an orthodox (27).  He held the seat for twenty-five years.  In his twenty-first year in office there was the second council in Constantinople (28).

At the time of this king there lived at Alexandria the patriarch Athanasius, at Constantinople the Manichaean patriarch Eudoxius, and at Rome the patriarch Līnāriyūs (29).

At the time of this king lived the blessed Basil, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, a territory subject to the jurisdiction of Rum, and Gregory, bishop of Nazianzus.  The inhabitants of the city of Nazianzus were all Sabeans.  Gregory, bishop of Nazianzus, composed the sermon on the birth of Christ, our Lord, which begins: “Christ is born, glorify [him]; Christ [is] from heaven: welcome Christ on earth: glorify [him]”(30), and while he was reading to them, they mocked him and started laughing.  On the feast of the Baptism, Gregory wrote another sermon in which reviewed the religion of the Sabeans and illuminated its errors.  This was the sermon that begins with the following words: “And again, my Jesus, and still a mystery” (31).  At the time of Julian the Apostate there lived Anba Antonius, who was the first monk to live in the desert of Egypt, where he founded the monasteries and gathered monks there.  Anba Hilarion lived in Syria (32), who was the first monk to live in the desert of Jordan where he collected the monks and founded the monasteries and many other places.

Learning that Sabur, son of Sabur, king of the Persians, was preparing to invade his territories, Julian the Apostate made the necessary preparations and went out against him.  Meanwhile he had spread his cult and his wicked religion everywhere, carryinbg out his perverse intention and proposal to return people to the worship of idols.  But Sabur, son of Sabur, king of the Persians, defeated him and killed him in battle, making great slaughter of his men.

7. Basil, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, has handed down to us that, one day while he was sitting in his room in front of a painting depicting the martyr Mercurius, he realized, suddenly, that the image of the martyr was missing from canvas.  He was very surprised.  After just one hour the image of the martyr had reappeared on the canvas but now, on the tip of the spear in his hand, was something like blood.  The wonder of Bishop Basil at the sight of this increased, and he remained deep in thought, until the news came that the King Julian the Apostate had been killed in the war in that hour.  Basil then understood that the martyr Mercurius had killed him, that Julian had been put to death on account of the animosity he felt toward Christians, and because of his firm resolution to restore everywhere the worship of idols (33).

8. After Julian the Apostate had been killed, there reigned over Rum, for one year only, Jovian (34).  This happened in the twenty-first year of the reign of Sabur, son of Sabur, king of the Persians.  The king Jovian was of excellent faith and a staunch defender of the religion of the Christians.  A rebel rose up against him a rebel, and Jovian made war on him, but died on the way at a place called Daris (35).

After him there reigned for twelve years over Rum Valentinian (36). This happened in the twenty-fourth year of the reign of Sabur, son of Sabur, king of the Persians. In the third year of his reign Damasus was made patriarch of Rome (37). He held the seat for twenty-eight years and died.

9. In his seventeenth year in office there was the second council at Constantinople.  In the fourth year of the reign of Valentinian Demophilus was made patriarch of Constantinople (38).  He was a Manichaean.  He held the office for eleven years and died.  In the first year of his reign Irnis was made bishop of Jerusalem (39).  He was a Manichaean.  He held the office for five years and died.  In the seventh year of his reign Hilarius was made bishop of Jerusalem (40).  He was an Arian.  He held the office for four years and died.  On his death there returned to his own see Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, who had fled because of the Arians.  He held the seat for sixteen years and died.  The entire period for which Cyril was bishop was thirty-three years.

10. In his twenty-seventh year in office there was the second council at Constantinople.  The population of Alexandria rebelled again against the patriarch Athanasius and decided to kill him.  But [Athanasius] fled and hid.  They therefore made Lucius Patriarch of Alexandria (41).  He was an Arian.  Five months later there gathered, along with a large group of Melkite Christians, a good number of bishops who excommunicated the patriarch Lucius and deposed him. The patriarch Athanasius returned to his own see and remained there until his death.  He was patriarch was for forty six years.

11. In the eighth year of the reign of Valentinian Peter was made Patriarch of Alexandria (42).  But the followers of Arius rose up against him, with the intention of killing him, and he fled away from them.  Lucius was then recalled, who had been deposed, and he held the office for three years.  But since the Melkites rose up against him with intent to kill him, he fled away from them.  The patriarch Peter then returned to his place. He held the office for six years and died.  In the Maghrib a rebel rose up against Valentinian. Valentinian went out against him at the head of a huge force but was killed in the war (43).

12. After him his brother Valens (44) reigned over Rum for three years.  This was in the thirty-sixth year of the reign of Sabur, son of Sabur, king of the Persians.

At the time of Valens, king of Rum, there lived in Alexandria, a man named Theodore who disputed and fought in defense of the doctrine of the Melkites, refuting the assertions of the Aryans.  The followers of the excommunicate Arius took him, tied his hands and tied him to the feet of a horse that they drove off at full speed in the direction of the desert.  He thus had all his limbs dislocated and died a martyr for the faith.  In the second year of the reign of Valens, king of Rum, Timothy was made patriarch of Alexandria (45), Peter’s brother, former patriarch of Alexandria before him.  He held the seat for seven years and died.

In his sixth year in office there was the second council in Constantinople.  The patriarch Timothy had built many churches in Alexandria and numerous tombs, and converted many people from Arianism to the Melkite religion.  In the third year of the reign of Valens, king of Rum, Evagrius was made patriarch of Constantinople (46), of the Melkite religion.  He held the seat for two years and was removed.  The king Valens sent for Gregory, bishop of Nazianzus, and ordered him to take care of the see of Constantinople.  Gregory administered it for four years and died.

At the time of Valens, king of Rum, St Euthymius was born (47).  In the West there rose up against Valens a rebel and Valens came out against him with his forces.  After many days of fighting, in a place called Tarāqā, Valente, king of Rum, was defeated and fled to a village in the province of Adrianople where they set fire to him and to the village (48).

13. After him reigned over Rum his son Valentinian (49) together with Gratian (50) for three years.  The king Gratian died a few days after the king Valentinian.  Then arose within Rum much contention about to whom to entrust the kingdom.  Some said: “One of the sons of the great king Valentinian should reign over us”. Others said: “Only a man who shares our faith should reign over us, to fight for the Christian faith.”  The opinions of many Christians and their doctrines were varied, but the doctrine of the Arians and followers of Macedonius won out.  They remained prey to confusion for six months without being able to give themselves a king, nor was there, then, a patriarch in Constantinople, because after the death of Gregory (51), bishop of Nazianzus, who had held the seat of Constantinople, another patriarch had not yet been made.  Then the ministers and generals went to one of the bishops of Constantinople, named Cyrus, excellent man, and full of virtue, and said:  “We will rely on you because you can judge what is best for us in such a predicament.  Choose from your full and unconditional initiative a man of your own faith and make him our king, because, if we continue to be without a king, the Persians or others could invade our country and subjugate us, because of our many doctrines and bitter disputes, and destroy us”.  The bishop replied, “If I choose for you a man, and I make him your king, this will leave some happy and others not, and thus there may be more fighting between you and more dead.  I can only give you some advice, that if you follow it will be more useful both to me and to you.”  They said to him: “What?” And the bishop replied: “Send around the city of Constantinople an crier and tell people to gather, at sunset, in the church where we will pray all night. Tomorrow we will celebrate the Mass and ask our God and our Lord Jesus Christ to choose for us a king. Whom He will choose, we will welcome him as our king.”  They welcomed his advice.

14. There lived in Constantinople two men, poor and of low condition, bound together by friendship.  One was called Theodosius, and was bald and thirty years old, and the other Theophilus, who was a sage and a philosopher and was twenty-five.  Both, every day, went out early from Constantinople in search of wood, which they carried on their heads and then sold, giving half of the proceeds in alms to the poor.  With what was left they bought something to eat and whatever they needed.  Only night separated them, when each went to his home and returned to their accustomed place.  That day Theophilus went early in the morning to Theodosius to wake him and go out in search of firewood.  When he called, Theodosius came out and said: “My brother, I was having a strange dream when you called me and woke me up in the throes of my turmoil.  If I can find someone who will give me an interpretation, I will give all him earn throughout the week, allowing that I am poor and have no other source of income except what I procure by selling the wood.”  Theophilus said:  “I know how to interpret dreams.  Tell me what you have dreamed of, and also, Christ, our Lord, willing, I’ll give an explanation, without you having to give anything to the person who would explain it.”

Theodosius said: “While I was sleeping, I heard a great voice and I awoke in the grip of turmoil.  Then I said to myself:  “The soldiers of the Persians have come to Constantinople” and I rushed into the street, but I did not see anyone and I did not hear any voices.  So I went back to bed and I fell asleep and I dreamed that I was in a vast desert full of big rams, sheep, cows and beasts, lions and birds and animals of every race and species, of leafy trees and large and most numerous heaps of grain, and I said: “I wish I could have a bit of that grain I, who are so poor!”  And as I looked at the animals, the trees and the vast harvest of wheat, behold I saw a tall man fifty cubits high, whose body shone like pure gold in his right hand and wore a double-edged sword, on which were engraved four seals that shone like gold, and in his left hand he had a golden shield.  When I saw him come near me, I was afraid and fell face down. But he took me by the hand, raised me up and told me: “Fear not. Would you like to have all that is in this wilderness?” I replied: “My Lord, I just want a bit of wheat.” And he answered me: “Everything you see in this wilderness will be yours from now on, and under your power.” Then he told me: “Follow me,” and I followed, as I walked here and I saw the rams, sheep, cows, the beasts and the birds and the trees fall down before me and reverence me.  The lions, however, greeted me with roars and I had great fear. But he told me then: “Fear not, take this sword and shield and keep them tight in your hand.”  The sword was double-edged and there were four seals on it.  I took them from him, therefore, the sword and the shield, and I kept them tight in hand.  When the lions saw the sword and shield in my hands, they bent their legs to the ground and prostrated themselves before me.  Then he took me to the sea and I saw come out of it a column of light.  The man stretched out his hand, took the column and it covered me, and in doing so the column was divided into three stars.  The first star was similar to the earth, and he wrapped me up in this light around the chest; the second was like beryl and he wrapped this light around my thighs, and the third was similar to ruby ​​and he wrapped this around my foot.  Then I was taken by the hand and taken back in that great wilderness and he told me: “Lift up your eyes to the sky.”  I looked up, and I saw a big star like lightning which is divided into two parts falling on my head.  Then he led me to a corner of the wilderness, and I saw thick briars and brambles sprouting in the middle of fruitless trees.  Then I was led into a wide and beautiful tent.  I looked into the tent, and there I saw in the centre a lamb, and a spring of water, as white as milk.  Then that lamb became like the flame of a fire, and ascended to heaven together with the water.  I came out of the tent, and I saw the man holding a long key which was a cubit wide, which he gave me and I said to him: “My Lord, how can I hold the shield, the sword and this key?”  He replied: “This is what you are commanded to do.”  I am left to speculate on whom to entrust the key.  And I saw you, standing to my right, wrapped in a white pallium and beautiful, and with a tiara on your head.  I handed the key to you, and then I saw only the man.  Then we headed home, but along the way we came across a wall that blocked the road, two hundred cubits long.  And I said: “How will we overcome this wall?” And as we were halted, I saw a light descending from heaven like lightning. The wall collapsed and we passed through. Then I woke up to the sound of your shout.”

Theophilus said: “If you have described your dream accurately, know that it will be you that is chosen as king. There, now I’ll explain.  The great wilderness is the world.  The sheep and the sheep are men, both the good and the bad, living in the world.  The beasts are the Greeks and the birds represent every town and village.  The trees are the ministers and generals.  These all shall bow down before you in your kingdom.  The lions are the enemies of the king.  The double-edged sword is the Torah and the books of the Old and New Testaments.  The four seals of the sword are the four evangelists and the piles of grain represent the enormous wealth of your kingdom.  The column of light with which you have been covered is the mercy of God that has fallen upon you, and that your days will abound.  The three stars that have fallen on you represent the baptism that you received in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.  The star then that fell from heaven alighting on your head is the crown of your kingdom.  And as you saw it split in two, you will have two children in your kingdom.  The brambles and fruitless trees represent the people who do not believe in Christ, our Lord.  The tent is the church and the lamb you saw in the middle of the tent is the Eucharist.  And the water was like milk is Baptism.  And as you saw the lamb like the flame of a fire with water ascend to heaven, so the Eucharist will rise to heaven.  The key, then, is the authority that was assigned to you, to give the church a leader who will govern according to your mandate.  You gave me the key, and that means that I will be made patriarch.  The wall, finally, is the peace and tranquility that there will be in your kingdom. And this is the interpretation of your dream.”

Theodosius said: “That’s very nice, my brother, your interpretation of my dream! But that I become king, and that you will become patriarch, this will never be possible!  Come on, get up, let’s go to work.”  As they were going out, they saw people heading to church and asked: “What day is this?” “We go to church,” they answered, “to see who God will choose as our king.” Theophilus said to Theodosius: “Let’s do the same ourselves and go to church. It could also be that your dream will come true.”  They entered the church and having prayed, Theodosius said Theophilus: “Our clothes are shabby and worn.  Let’s get behind everyone and let ‘s see what happens.”  The mass ended, and people were about to leave, when suddenly a large bird appeared, carrying in its beak a crown of light.

The people watched it for a couple of hours and began to shout: “O Lord, have mercy on us!”  The bird then moved toward Theodosius and dropped on his head a crown of light.  He was immediately brought to the altar, where the bishop took away the worn and shabby clothes, covered him with the royal robes and put on his head the crown of the kingdom, calling on him the blessing of God.  Then he was made to mount on one of the king’s horses – Theodosius still did not believe his eyes seeing himself surrounded by ministers and generals – and introduced him to the court, that the king’s palace, going then each their own way.

The Digital Archaeological Record (tDar) News

Resources on Digital Curation, Preservation and Access

Digital Antiquity staff often get requests for information on curating, preserving and accessing digital archaeological material, and we try to share as much of our knowledge as possible through our blog, online seminars and in person workshops. Inspired by a recent conversation on Twitter, we thought we’d share resources we’ve put together and that people interested in these topics will find helpful.

Contributors to tDAR’s blog have addressed issues regarding curation, preservation and access in the selection of blog posts below:

Digital Antiquity and the Archaeological Data Service have also produced guidance on good practices for caring for digital archaeological data:

If you would like to learn more about curation, preservation and access for archaeology we encourage you to sign up for one of our workshops or online seminars offered through the Society for American Archaeology:

Do you have a specific question or topic you think we should explore? Feel free to leave a comment! Register for SAA 2015 Annual Meeting and sign up for our in person workshops. If you have already registered you can always log in and edit your registration through the SAA website. In addition to the workshops our staff are giving papers and posters and will be on hand in the exhibit hall all week.  We hope to see you there!

Charles Ellwood Jones (AWOL: The Ancient World Online)

Scholiastae.org

Scholiastae.org
This is a collection of prose texts in various historical languages which I have marked up with notes on grammar, vocabulary (lots of vocabulary), text criticism and history. The model is similar to the poetry texts at Aoidoi.org. The main difference is that the prose texts here may be in a less complete stage of commenting. It is hoped others will find them useful, but they are probably less useful for beginners than for intermediate and advanced readers. 

Those who know LaTeX — and are familiar with the Unicode-aware XeTeX variant of it — can get the LaTeX source for any document by changing the .pdf in the file name to .tex. It is a quirk of the ledmac library that you will have to run xetex two or three times on the file to get the vocabulary notes to settle firmly in the correct position.

The Wiki was retired on April 30th, 2012. Certain documents from that site were reformatted and preserved here, however.

Classical Greek

First, there are a number of texts of Greek philosophy in various stages of commenting:
Light letters and dialogs:
Finally, things that don't belong anywhere else:

Classical Nahuatl

I have recently started studying Classical Nahuatl, on and off. With Greek and Latin texts, we usually have regularized critical texts to work from, but this is much less common for Nahuatl, where interesting spelling and abundant variants are usual.
Someone produced a series of translations, both linguistic and cultural, of the fables of Aesop.

John Wallrodt (Paperless Archaeology)

Mobilizing the Past Workshop Videos

I can hardly describe how useful the Mobilizing the Past: The Potential of Digital Archaeology workshop was last weekend. The organizers: Erin Averett, Derek Counts, Jody Gordon, and Michael Toumazou built a solid schedule of talks with a very tight thematic focus. I don’t know when I learned more in a single weekend. Bill Caraher, the self-described […]

Charles Ellwood Jones (AWOL: The Ancient World Online)

Newly Open Access Journal: Topoi. Orient-Occident

 Have you taken the AWOL User Survey?

Topoi. Orient-Occident
The first issue of Topoi was published in 1991 ; proceedings of a colloquium or a festschrift dedicated to a scholar are published in supplement volumes. The Eastern Mediterranean, the Near East, from archaic times to the Late Roman period are at the heart of the interests of the journal, with a special focus on the Hellenized East, economics, temples and shrines, cultural interactions ... Other periods or regions (Indian world and Central Asia, Western Greeks ) or other topics ( paleoenvironnemnatl studies ) may be included. Topoi stands out by giving a large place to books reviews and debates.

Available periods  :

1991-1999

Robert Consoli (Squinches)

Last Man Standing ~~ Attacking the Athenian Acropolis




I’d like to use this post to laboriously demonstrate something that’s perfectly obvious to everyone who has ever been to Athens, namely that besiegers of the Athenian Acropolis have a severely limited visual field while defenders of the Acropolis enjoy unparalled views of their enemies.  I'm going to try to show that the Athenian Acropolis (70 m in height, ~230 feet) was a much more formidable obstacle to any Bronze Age besieger than Mycenae or Tiryns.


In a previous post I used Google Earth’s viewshed feature to trace what’s visible to those besieging Mycenae.  Here I propose to do the same thing for the Acropolis of Athens.  To start with I drew 200 yard and 300 yard circles around an arbitrarily selected point on the top of the Acropolis.  This point corresponds roughly to the position of the hypothesized Mycenaean palace on the Acropolis[1].  That point is labelled 'Palace' in fig. 1.

Fig 1.  200 yard (yellow) and 300 yard (red) cricles concentered at an
hypothetical palace location on the Athenian Acropolis.

 Around these two circles I placed 10 points from which viewsheds could be calculated.  A viewshed, as I mentioned in a previous post, consists of everything that is in line of sight from any specific point.  The question is 'what do the several viewsheds look like from the besieger's point of view (Points 1 through 10 and the point labelled 'Areopagus') and what does that point of view look like from the top of the Acropolis itself (Viewpoint1)?

The Acropolis of Athens, if approachable at all, is most so from the west where the ridge dips into a saddle that separates it from the Areopagus hill.  What is the view like from that hill?  I show the viewshed of the  point labelled 'Areopagus' in figure 2.

Fig. 2.  Viewshed (in green) from the point labelled 'Areopagus' (lower center).
In figure 2 we see that the view from the top of the Areopagus hill is good - except for the top of the Acropolis itself.  In the south-west quarter of the top of the Acropolis Google has placed a patchy green area.  That appears to be an artifact; I can think of nothing in that position that could be seen from the Areopagus.

Figure 3 is a photograph that shows the view of the west side of the Acropolis from the Areopagus hill.  This dramatically confirms what Google has told us:

Figure 3.  View of the north-west and west of the Athenian Acropolis.
Courtesy of Squinchpix.com.

Since Mycenaean times the west end of the Acropolis has been completely transformed.  What is the same is the Mycenaean wall and buttresses on the north-west labelled A in figure 3.  The access to water described by Broneer (1939) is roughly behind B; the Erechtheum (5C BC, probably adjacent and to the north of the supposed Mycenaean-period palace) can be seen just above it at C.

This is as good as it gets for any attacker.  All the other angles of view are much worse as we see in the next figure which shows the view from position 1 which is 300 yards to the north-west of the palace.

Figure 4.  Viewshed (in green) from Point 1 (lower center) at the 300 yard line.
Viewpoint 1 is located in the southernmost agora (function in Mycenaean times not known) on relatively level ground.  The viewer can see the entire northern flank of the acropolis but nothing on top.  In figure 5 I show the view of the Acropolis from about the same angle but from 850 yards.  This will give a good idea of the nature of the ground.

Figure 5.  View of the Acropolis from the Temple of Hephaestus (about 850 yards).
Courtesy of Squinchpix.com

Here we see that the ground around the north and east of the Acropolis is difficult terrain; it slopes at (my estimate) about 30-40 degrees leading up to the sheer sides.  This is at the far limit of what organized infantry can do and, in fact, infantry can do nothing here as there is nothing to attack.

What can the defenders of the Acropolis see?  They are ideally placed to see not only the entire valley; they can see what's going on right under their feet as I show in Figure 6.

Figure 6.  The view (green) from an arbitrarily selected point (Viewpoint1) at the edge of the Acropolis.

This figure gives a good idea of the relative advantage of the defenders over the besiegers of the Athenian Acropolis.  The defender (at 'Viewpoint1' at the north-eastern edge of the Acropolis can see the entire valley to the north as well as any besiegers at the base.

I have long supposed that these simple facts of terrain do much to explain the differential fates of the great Mycenaean centers at the end of LH IIIB.[2]  The cyclopean walls at Mycenae were, at their highest, approximately 42 feet.  The citadel of Athens (in whatever form it took) was more than five times higher, situated on a natural plateau with cliffs whose sheerness was increased with Cyclopean walls.

Mycenae, Tiryns, and Midea were burned and destroyed at the end of the LH IIIB.  There is no destruction layer at Athens from the LH IIIB/C.

So who picked up the pieces during the LH IIIC?

~~

I have placed various other illustrative pictures of all the viewsheds on Google Drive.  I also placed there the .kmz and .kml.  The reader may modify these materials and try other parameters.  I would very much like to hear from those who take this experiment further.

Endnotes

[1] Iliad, ii, 546, ‘Οἳ δ᾿ ἄρ᾿ Ἀθήνας εἶχον, ἐυκτίμενον πτολίεθρον’, ‘And they who held Athens, the well-built citadel’; Mountjoy (1995) surveys the physical evidence on pp. 41-2.

[2]  The Acropolis was, as we know, seized by Xerxes in 480 BC during  the invasion of Attica.  But it was poorly defended because the city was almost entirely deserted.  See Herodotus, Histories, viii.41, in Godley (1925) 38-41.  The hill was held (if that is the right word) by a small number of temple treasurers, the 'indigent' (πένητας ἀνθρώπους), and some who had misinterpreted the oracle about the 'wooden walls' that would save Athens.  Even this pathetic force managed to hold the Acropolis for a short time until, as Herodotus tells us (viii.53), the Persians scaled the sheer east end (it was not guarded) and took the defenders from behind.  Like many tourists I have stood at the extreme east end and looked down; scaling the hill from that side is not something I'd care to try.  Herodotus' account (viii.51-53) is well worth reading including the use by the Persians of burning arrows.  After writing this I discovered a splendid illustration reconstructing the scene in Shepherd (2010) 58-60.  I recommend it to my readers.

So the Athenian Acropolis can be taken ... if it's poorly defended.

Bibliography

Broneer (1939): Broneer, Oscar, “A Mycenaean Fountain on the Athenian Acropolis,” Hesperia 8(1939) 317-433.


Godley (1925): Godley, A.D., Herodotus. The Persian Wars, Volume IV: Books 8-9.   Loeb Classical Library 120. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1925.
Mountjoy (1995): Mountjoy, P.A., Mycenaean Athens, Paul Astroms Forlag, Jonsered, 1995.

Shepherd (2010): Shepherd, William. Salamis 480 BC: The naval campaign that saved Greece.  Illustrated by Peter Dennis.  Osprey Publishing.  2010.

Charles Ellwood Jones (AWOL: The Ancient World Online)

Open Access Digital Library: ArchNet

[First posted in AWOL 24 July 2009, updated 3 March 2015]

Have you taken the AWOL User Survey?

ArchNet
http://archnet.org/system/media_contents/contents/91317/original/IAA104212.jpg?1403182292

ArchNet is an exciting project being developed at the MIT School of Architecture and Planning in close cooperation with, and with the full support of The Aga Khan Trust for Culture, an agency of the Aga Khan Development Network. The Aga Khan Trust for Culture is a private, non-denominational, international development agency with programmes dedicated to the improvement of built environments in societies where Muslims have a significant presence.

The goal of ArchNet is to create a community of architects, planners, educators, and students. The community can help each other by sharing expertise, local experience, resources, and dialogue. Members are urged to take on a pro-active role in the community. Imagine the wealth of knowledge and history created in the various schools of architecture around the world. ArchNet hopes to tap that knowledge and provide a mechanism by which these valuable tools can be disseminated.

ArchNet will provide an extensive, high-quality, globally accessible, intellectual resource focused on architecture and planning issues and includes restoration, conservation, housing, landscape, and related concerns. It is to be achieved by providing on an accessible server, images, Geographic Information System and Computer-Aided Design databases, a searchable text library, bibliographical reference databases, online lectures, curricular materials, papers, essays, and reviews, discussion forums and statistical information. The structure will be designed to offer each user a personal workspace tailored to his or her individual needs. From this space, they will be able to contribute their own findings and research to the larger site. The website will aim to foster close ties between institutions and between users. Through the use of online forums, chat rooms, and debates, it is hoped that the site can encourage and promote discussions amongst participants. ArchNet will be accessible to anyone with an Internet connection. It will be a bottom-up system, in which information will eventually flow directly from the user to a continually expanding database which can be shared by all. The system will be designed to promote ready intercommunication and maintenance of an international scholarly community of ArchNet members.

Archnet is pleased to offer open access to a very unique set of resources related to the built environment of the Muslim world. These archives, images, drawings, publications, seminar proceedings, articles, serials and project documentation comprise an unparalleled resource and research tool for the study of Islamic art and architecture. They bring together donated photo collections, journals published around the world, monographs and architect’s archives that are linked to sites, people, publications and other related materials. These resources are updated on a regular basis and new materials are always in the pipeline. Enjoy your browsing.

Drawings of Islamic Monuments

Muqarnas

Robert Consoli (Squinches)

Cyclopean Builders




Cyclopean walls and the Cyclops who built them[1]


The following is a result of reading I have been doing about the walls of Mycenae.  I began to wonder who it was exactly who first thought, or at least recorded the idea, that the Cyclops had built the walls of Mycenae and Tiryns.  The following, essentially a stand-alone footnote, traces some of the sources.  I hope that you will find it useful as a start.  (There are a few more references in LSJ under Κυκλώπειον.)

Cyclopean construction inside the entrance to Mycenae.  Argolid, Greece.
Courtesy of Squinchpix.com


In the Odyssey (ix.105-115, and cp. Arist., Nic Eth, x.11.13-14.) we learn that the Cyclops are rough and uncivilized folk, arrogant and lawless (ὑπερφιάλων ἀθεμίστων, 106).   Agriculture is unknown to them but Zeus has ordained that, in their land, everything grow naturally without being cultivated.  Nor do the Cyclops meet in assembly (τοῖσιν δ᾿ οὔτ᾿ ἀγοραὶ βουληφόροι οὔτε θέμιστες, 112) but each lives with his own wives and children; for them he is the only lawgiver (θεμιστεύει δὲ ἕκαστος παίδων ἠδ᾿ ἀλόχων 114-115).  Beyond that the Cyclops have no regard for each other (οὐδ᾿ ἀλλήλων ἀλέγουσιν., 115).


As a result the earliest implication of the word ‘Cyclopean’ (Κυκλώπειος) is 'savage', 'uncivilized', 'rough', or 'wild'. (Cyclops libel!) The apparent roughness and irregularity of the outer works of Mycenae and Tiryns seems to have invoked this sense in the minds of observers. Early on the word came to be applied to the Mycenaean walling in the Argolid and from there it was only a short step to the idea that the Cyclops actually built them. So Pindar has “ἐπεὶ Γηρυόνα  βόας Κυκλώπειον ἐπὶ πρόθυρον Εὐρυσθ̣έος”, “for he drove Geryon’s cattle to the Cyclopean portal of Eurystheus..”. (Eurystheus - King of Tiryns).[2]


This sense of ‘Cyclops-built’ is continued in the Electra where Euripides describes the homecoming of Agamemnon to Mycenae, “..εἰς οἴκους Κυκλώπειά τ᾽ οὐράνια..”, "..when he came at last to his home and to the towering Cyclopeian walls; ..."[3]

In his Heracles we have this: "But he, as though he really were at the Cyclopean walls, prized open the doors with levers, and, hurling down their posts", "ὁ δ᾿ ὡς ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῖς δὴ Κυκλωπίοισιν ὢν σκάπτει μοχλεύει θύρετρα" to describe the madness of Heracles breaking down the door of his home in order to murder his wife and son.[4]

To sense of 'uncivilized' is added the sense of 'gigantic' as in the 1C BC use in the Greek Anthology, “πῶμα Κυκλωπείην πλησομένη κύλικα·”, "about to fill a cup of Cyclopean size"[5]

Apollodoros [5a] picks up the idea as it appears in Euripides.  In his recounting of the myths relating to Proitos he says this:   "Proetus went to Lycia to the court of Iobates or, as some say, of Amphianax and married his daughter, whom Homer calls Antia, 
but the tragic poets call her Stheneboea.  His father-in-law restored him to his own land with an army of Lycians, and he occupied Tiryns, which the Cyclopes had fortified for him.",  "Τίρυνθα, ταύτην αὐτῷ Κυκλώπων τειχισάντων."[5a]

Strabo appears to use the word in both senses. When describing the east coast of the Peloponnese he travels northwards to the Gulf of Argos, then to Lerna and Nauplio. Then he says "Next after Nauplia one comes to the caverns and the labyrinths built in them, which are called Cyclopeian.", "ἐφεξῆς δὲ τῇ Ναυπλίᾳ τὰ σπήλαια καὶ οἱ ἐν αὐτοῖς οἰκοδομητοὶ λαβύρινθοι, Κυκλώπεια δ᾿ ὀνομάζουσιν."[6] Since, after Nauplio, one comes to Tiryns I take this to be Strabo's meaning. The 'caverns' I suppose - but I do not know - are probably the several openings in the Tiryns curtain wall.

In viii.6.11 Strabo tells the actual story of the Cyclops and how they built the walls of Tiryns for Proitos. He says that Proitos, who was a King of Tiryns, had the city walled with the help of the Cyclops. "..Προῖτος καὶ τειχίσαι διὰ Κυκλώπων, οὓς ἑπτὰ μὲν εἶναι, καλεῖσθαι δὲ γαστερόχειρας, τρεφομένους ἐκ τῆς τέχνης,.." There were seven of them and they were called 'Bellyhands' (γαστερόχειρας) because they fed themselves by working their handicraft which implies that there are other stories of the Cyclops as builders. An interesting story, hardly a myth (except for the part about Proitos which is a classic founding myth), but more an etiological narrative which which most likely emerges during the period that followed the Catastrophe.[7]

Later in the Geography Strabo uses the word to mean 'rough', 'uncivilized' when talking about the mode of life of the Albanians.[8] "those who have made expeditions there, who describe the mode of life there as 'Cyclopeian.'", "καθάπερ οἱ στρατεύσαντές φασι, Κυκλώπειόν τινα διηγούμενοι βίον.."

By the time of Pliny the Elder (1C) the expertise of the Cyclops has been extended to towers although he attributes the building of walls themselves to Thrason (not otherwise known to me): "walls were introduced by Thrason, towers by the Cyclopes according to Aristotle but according to Theophrastus by the Tirynthians
", "Thrason muros, turres ut Aristoteles Cyclopes, Tirynthii ut Theophrastus;" [9]  He repeats here an unattested (?) version of the story from Aristotle (4CBC).

In the second century AD Pausanias seems to pick up the story from Strabo and extends it to Mycenae.  It is not clear to me that Pausanias himself thought that these walls were built by the Cyclops. At one point he uses ‘they say’ (λέγουσιν) and at another he says ‘is the work of’ (Κυκλώπων μέν ἐστιν ἔργον). In a third passage 'is the work of the ones called Cyclops' (τῶν Κυκλώπων καλουμένων).

Regarding the walls of Mycenae and the lion gate he says this: “These, too, are said to be the work of the Cyclopes, (“Κυκλώπων δὲ καὶ ταῦτα ἔργα εἶναι λέγουσιν”) who made for Proetus the wall at Tiryns”.[10]

As for the walls of Tiryns he says: “The wall, which is the only part of the ruins still remaining, is a work of the Cyclopes (“τὸ δὲ τεῖχος, ὃ δὴ μόνον τῶν ἐρειπίων λείπεται, Κυκλώπων μέν ἐστιν ἔργον”) made of unwrought stones”[11]

In describing the conquest of Mycenae by the Argives in the 5C BC: “Μυκηναίοις γὰρ τὸ μὲν τεῖχος ἁλῶναι κατὰ τὸ ἰσχυρὸν οὐκ ἐδύνατο ὑπὸ Ἀργείων, ἐτετείχιστο γὰρ κατὰ ταὐτὰ τῷ ἐν Τίρυνθι ὑπὸ τῶν Κυκλώπων καλουμένων…” "Though the Argives could not take the wall of Mycenae by storm, built as it was like the wall of Tiryns by the Cyclopes, as they are called, yet the Mycenaeans were forced to leave their city through lack of provisions."[12]


Finally, an anonymous poet from the Greek Anthology refers to "Cyclops-built Mycenae", "κυκλωπείη τε Μυκήνη”.[13]


Endnotes


[1] And see the discussion in Loader (1995) 12 who traces the term only back to Pausanias:  "The style was labelled as early as the second century AD, by Pausanias in his 'Έλλαδος Περιηγησεως', when recalling the legend of building the fortifications of Mycenae and Tiryns by the Cyclopes (II.xvi.5-6, II.xxv.8). Apollodoros (II.ii.1) and Strabo (VIII.vi.11), and later travellers and geographers have also recounted the legend, labelling the architectural style as the work of the Cyclopes; hence the term 'Cyclopean'."

[2] In Frag. 169a, 6-7 .  Race (1997) 402-3.   And see the informative note on p. 400.

[3] Electra, 1155.

[4] Kovacs (1998) 404-5, Heracles, ll. 998-999.  This translation from Coleridge (1938).

[5] Paton (1917) 248-249.  A sepulchral poem by Aristo, vii.457.

[5a] Between 50 B.C. and, perhaps, the 2C A.D.    Pseudo-Apollodorus in Library, II.ii.1.  Frazer (1921) 146-7. For authorial attribution and date see the discussion by Frazer on pp. ix-xi.  Frazer is content to establish the terminus post quem of about 50 B.C. and does not speculate on the end date.

[6] Strabo, Geography, viii.6.3.  Jones (1927) 152-3.

[7] Strabo, Geography, viii.6.11.  Jones (1927) 168-9.

[8] Geography, xi.4.3  in Jones (1928) 224-5.

[9] Rackham (1942) 638-9.

[10] Jones (1918) 330-331. Corinthxvi.5.  Also Thomas and Conant (1999) 5. 

[11] 'Unwrought' is not entirely accurate.  The stones around the Lion Gate (part of the 13th C extension) are ashlars or conglomerate sawed into regular rectangular shapes with bronze saws.  For this see Loader (1995) 36.  The same is true of the 'Treasury of Atreus' which is entirely of conglomerate ashlars.  For the quotation see Jones (1918) 382-3 in his translation of the Corinth of Pausanias xxv, 8.

[12] This was in the fifth century BC.  Jones (1933) 322-3. Achaia xxv, 6.  Levi (1971) 297 and fn. 139.

[13] Probably 1C BC but I cannot establish the date.  Paton (1918).  336-7.

Bibliography

Coleridge (1938):  Coleridge, E.P. trans.,  Whitney J. Oates, and Eugene O'Neill Jr. (edd.). Euripides. The Complete Greek Drama, Vol.1. Heracles,  New York. Random House. 1938.

Frazer (1921): Frazer, James G., trans., Apollodorus. The Library, Volume I: Books 1-3.9. Loeb Classical Library 121. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1921.

Jones (1918): Jones, W.H.S., trans.  Pausanias. Description of Greece, Volume I: Books 1-2 (Attica and Corinth). Loeb Classical Library 93. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1918.


Jones (1927):  Jones, Horace Leonard, trans., Strabo. Geography, Volume IV: Books 8-9.  Loeb Classical Library 196. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927.

Jones (1928): Jones, Horace Leonard, trans., Strabo. Geography, Volume V: Books 10-12.  Loeb Classical Library 211. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1928.

Jones (1933): Jones, W.H.S., trans. Pausanias. Description of Greece, Volume III: Books 6-8.21 (Elis 2, Achaia, Arcadia). Loeb Classical Library 272. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1933.

Kovacs (1998):  Euripides. Suppliant Women. Electra. Heracles. Edited and translated by David Kovacs. Loeb Classical Library 9. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998.

Levi (1971): Levi, Peter, trans., Pausanias: Guide to Greece 1: Central Greece. Penguin Books.  London, England. 1971.

Loader (1995): Loader, Nancy Claire.  The definition of cyclopean: An investigation into the origins of the LH III fortications on mainland Greece.  Ph.D. Dissertation. Online here.

Paton (1917): Paton, W.R. trans., The Greek Anthology, Volume II: Book 7: Sepulchral Epigrams. Book 8: The Epigrams of St. Gregory the Theologian. Loeb Classical Library 68. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1917.

Paton (1918): Paton, W.R. trans.,  The Greek Anthology, Volume V: Book 13: Epigrams in Various Metres. Book 14: Arithmetical Problems, Riddles, Oracles. Book 15: Miscellanea. Book 16: Epigrams of the Planudean Anthology Not in the Palatine Manuscript.  Loeb Classical Library 86. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1918.

Race (1997): Pindar. Nemean Odes. Isthmian Odes. Fragments. Edited and translated by William H. Race. Loeb Classical Library 485. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997.

Rackham (1942): Rackham, H. trans., Pliny. Natural History, Volume II: Books 3-7. Loeb Classical Library 352. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1942.

Thomas and Conant (1999): Thomas, Carol G. and Craig Conant. Citadel to City-State: The Transformation of Greece, 1200-700 B.C.E. Indiana University Press, 1999.




Bill Caraher (The New Archaeology of the Mediterranean World)

Mobilizing the Past Workshop Review, Part 2

Yesterday, I posted a review of the Mobilizing the Past for a Digital Future Conference held last weekend in Boston. This review focused on things that I really liked about the event. To be clear and fair, the event was great, and it left me with tremendously positive feelings about the digital future of our discipline. That being said, there remain opportunities for a more critical engagement with the digital tools that we use.

NewImage

In the second part of my two part review of the conference, I thought I would touch on some of my key concerns as we continue to explore the potential of digital archaeology. Most of my critiques are not focused on particular papers, but on the overall direction of digital archaeology as a form of critical practice in the discipline.  As they say, great conferences leave you with more questions than answers, and I hope my comments below reflect this…

1. Slow Archaeology. I tried to open a space for some critical engagement with my paper on “Slow Archaeology,” but I fear that I mostly confused things. One benefit of having a blog is that I can take a moment to clarify a few points. First, I was less concerned with the speed of archaeology than my paper may have suggested. By invoking “slow” I attempting to shift the focus to the context of archaeological practice and to interrogate the relationship between how we do things and why we do things. So for me, “slow” meant “critical practice” which often, but not always takes more time. Next, I tried to refer to the emphasis on the local in the slow movement. When we talk about slow food, for example, we’re as likely to discuss the origins of the food as how long it takes to prepare it. Slow food, despite its critical and practical limits, represents local cuisine, prepared with a sensitivity to its economic, social, historical, and political context. By slow, I meant to shift our attention to the entire processes of archaeology rather than just its convenience or efficiency. Finally, I made an entirely unsuccessful effort to suggest that our investment in digital surrogates does have an effect on the ancient objects that we study. To put it another way, we have opened a digital divide in our discipline as we spend more and more time with digital objects standing in for physical objects and contexts.

2. It’s a Mac World. It was pretty remarkable to see the preponderance of Apple gear at this conference. IPads remain the preferred tablet in the field and FileMaker Pro seems to have ousted Microsoft Access as the relational database of choice among archaeology’s digital elite. This got me thinking about how much the tools that we use and our relationship to particular manufacturers shapes our approaches.

3. The Digital Divide. At the very end of the conversation several of us bantered a bit about the cost of digital archaeology. One speaker suggested that digital tools should cost around 10% of the total budget of a project; another suggested that if I project couldn’t afford iPads, maybe they shouldn’t be excavating; and another person noted the trend of B.Y.O.T. (bring your own technology). I recognized that it was the end of a long and intense day, but nothing revealed more about the role of digital practices in archaeology than the very evident divide between projects who prioritize investment and development of digital tools and those that do not. This seems to have manifest itself not so much in the use of digital tools per se, but in whether we take the time to articulate the significance of these tools in our archaeological workflow.  

4. The Politics, Products, and Policies. I was a bit disappointed that there wasn’t more discussion of the rapidly evolving policies in host countries regarding the digital output of archaeological projects. As several of our presenters pointed out, in passing, many indigenous communities, local governments, and government agencies lack the infrastructure to access and manipulate the most robust and complex archaeological datasets. Moreover, as digital surrogates of sites and objects become more complex and precise (for lack of better terms), archaeologists are increasingly able to take highly accurate copies of buildings and objects abroad for study in a way that they could never manage with physical artifacts. I was curious to understand more about how these trends might effect the politics of a archaeological work and our responsibilities to local communities, host countries, and our discipline.  

5. Context is Everything. I was really excited about the range of digital tools and practices on display the conference. The best papers clearly demonstrated how digital practices solved particular problems – real problems – that existed in traditional field practices. The most obvious problems were the most simple: the fragility of paper documents, difficulties accessing dispersed character of archaeological field archives, or inconsistencies of traditional data collection. Less obvious at the conference were examples of digital tools solving the interpretive problems at the core of archaeological practice. I found myself asking (in my own head mostly because people got pretty sick of hearing me talk), “how did these digital tools help you to understand the past better?” Eric Poehler’s paper came close to this, for example, when he showed how a suite of digital tools revealed the presence of a polygonal structure in the middle of Pompeii’s famed Quadraporticus. Many of the other papers, however, seem to have started with the less focused issue of whether it was possible to do archaeology better. As I mentioned yesterday, I left the conference feeling like it was possible to do archaeology differently, but without understanding the particularities of each project, I struggled to understand how digital tool engoodened our field practice. Without taking anything away from the fun and utility of experimenting and play in an archaeological context, context remains everything even in the realm of digital solutions. Greater efficiency is not an archaeological problem.

6. What is Data? This simple question led my back to work of the R.G. Collingwood. Whatever his limitations are, he makes a simple point: for the historian and archaeologists, evidence (or data) never exists on its own, but must be data or evidence for something. In Collingwood’s mind, evidence or data must provide a way to answers a question. 

Now I recognize that archaeologists have an obligation to do more than dig a hole in whatever way is most efficient in order to find an answer to a question. Much of the “methodological turn” in the discipline has emphasized the need to answer questions responsibly and to strike the balance between the destructive character of archaeological practice and the need to collect evidence for particular questions. At times, however, archaeologists have confused the importance of data collecting with the importance of question answering. If our goal as archaeologists is to collect all possible information from a trench in the confidence that we can reconstruct the relationship between all objects (natural and man made) displaced by our excavation, we’re bound to be disappointed. In fact, Mediterranean survey archaeologists have long been accused of “Mediterranean Myopia” in which the intensity of data collection impairs our ability to answer questions on a regional scale. 

I left the conference wondering whether the digital turn in Mediterranean archaeology could continue to exaggerate these problems as improvements in efficiency and accuracy are relatively low-hanging fruit in comparison to difficult task of wresting meaning from the data collected. Our goal as archaeologists is not to reconstruct the entire ancient world or even the processes that created an archaeological deposit, but to answer particular and specific questions relevant to our modern condition. Archaeological excavation is destructive and all recording practices fragment a unified whole. Archaeologists reconstruct this fragmented whole not as it once was in the ground or in the past, but as it has meaning to us as an answer to a particular question. 


Corinthian Matters

Deserted Villages Session: AIA 2016

Another interesting conference session is in the works—this one for the 2016 meetings of the Archaeological Institute of America on the theme of “Deserted Villages.” I had never seen as much talk on FB about “abandonment” and “formation processes” as the day last summer when friends began to bandy about this session idea.

Proposed Colloquium Session for the 2016 AIA Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA, January 6-9, 2016

Organizers: Deb Brown Stewart and Kostis Kourelis on behalf of the Medieval and Post-Medieval Archaeology Interest Group, Archaeological Institute of America

Deadline for Submission of Abstracts: March 13, 2015

The Medieval and Post-Medieval Archaeology Interest Group invites proposals for papers on the topic “Deserted Villages” for a colloquium at the next AIA Annual Meeting. Of particular interest are papers that feature post-classical sites (late-antique, medieval, or post-medieval villages) and that address:

- definitions of “village” (archaeological or ethnographic),

- new fieldwork or new interpretations of data,

- research that brings together diverse sources of data, and

- historic preservation concerns.

The selected proposals will shape a fuller abstract for the colloquium.

If you have a suitable paper or idea, please send (1) authors’ names, (2) institutional affiliations, (3) contact information, (4) paper title, (5) approximate length of time for your presentation (no more than 20 minutes), and (6) an abstract (no more than 400 words and conforming to “AIA Style Guidelines for Annual Meeting Abstracts”) by March 13th to Deb Brown Stewart, debbrownstewart@gmail.com

Corinth_June 12 021_m


Charles Ellwood Jones (AWOL: The Ancient World Online)

Assyian Empire Builders: Governors, diplomats and soldiers in the service of Sargon II and Tiglath-pileser III, kings of Assyria

[First posted in AWOL 31 May 2011, updated 3 March 2015]

Have you taken the AWOL User Survey?

Assyian Empire Builders: Governors, diplomats and soldiers in the service of Sargon II and Tiglath-pileser III, kings of Assyria
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/sargon/images/essentials/winged-bull.jpg
The correspondence between Sargon II, king of Assyria (721-705 BC), and his governors and magnates is the largest text corpus of this kind known from antiquity and provides insight into the mechanisms of communication between the top levels of authority in an ancient empire. His letters are supplemented by the smaller corpus of correspondence of his predecessor, Tiglath-pileser III (744-727 BC). This website presents these letters together with resources and materials for their study and on their historical and cultural context.
Web browser settings
If your browser has problems displaying the special transliteration characters such as Š and š (Shin), Ṣ and ṣ (Sade), Ṭ and ṭ (Tet) you may want to download Steve Tinney's Ungkam font for Mac, Windows, or Linux. If you're still having trouble viewing these characters, then you'll need to set the character encoding on your browser correctly.
  • On Firefox, go to the Character Encoding item on the View menu and choose Unicode (UTF-8).
  • On Google Chrome, go to the Encoding item on the View menu and choose Unicode (UTF-8).
  • On Internet Explorer, go to the Encoding item on the View menu and choose Unicode (UTF-8).
  • On Safari, go to the Text Encoding item on the View menu and choose Unicode (UTF-8).
The five crucial edited volumes of this correspondence in the Assyrian and Babylonian dialects are:
  • S. Parpola, The Correspondence of Sargon II, Part I: Letters from Assyria and the West (State Archives of Assyria 1), Helsinki 1987
  • G. B. Lanfranchi and S. Parpola, The Correspondence of Sargon II, Part II: Letters from the Northern and Northeastern Provinces (State Archives of Assyria 5), Helsinki 1990
  • A. Fuchs and S. Parpola, The Correspondence of Sargon II, Part III: Letters from Babylonia and the Eastern Provinces (State Archives of Assyria 15), Helsinki 2001
  • M. Dietrich, The Neo-Babylonian Correspondence of Sargon and Sennacherib (State Archives of Assyria 17), Helsinki 2003
  • M. Luukko, The Correspondence of Tiglath-pileser III and Sargon II from Calah/Nimrud (State Archives of Assyria 19), Helsinki 2012
In addition to the royal correspondence, our knowledge of the organisation of the Assyrian empire at that time owes much to the eponym lists and chronicles, a group of texts edited in this volume:
  • A. R. Millard, The Eponyms of the Assyrian Empire 910-612 B.C. (State Archives of Assyria Studies 2), Helsinki 1994



Assyrian Empire Builders and Knowledge and Power are portals to State Archives of Assyria Online

and are components of The Open Richly Annotated Cuneiform Corpus (ORACC).

Archeomatica: Tecnologie per i Beni Culturali

Antonello, l'Annunciata, il Magnificat, presentazione dei recenti studi sul celebre dipinto

Il mistero dell’Annunciata che per tanti secoli ha animato tavoli di discussione tra critici , storici , studiosi ed esperti in arte sacra, si arricchisce di inediti dettagli e simbolismi che vanno oltre l’allegoria classica,  tipica dei canoni quattrocenteschi.

Un team di creativi dell’Università di Palermo, coordinati da Mauro Lucco,  autorevole storico dell’arte , già curatore di numerose mostre tra cui proprio quella su Antonello da Messina alle Scuderie del Quirinale, Giovanni Taormina, coordinatore tecnico scientifico dello studio e Renato Tomasino Presidente del  LUM di Palermo - Laboratorio Universitario  Multimediale,  ha sintetizzato in un video i momenti più salienti e simbolici che si celano dietro il dipinto de l’Annunciata di Antonello da Messina , custodito a Palermo alla Galleria Museo Palazzo Abatellis.

Digital Humanities Center (Indiana University)

Sherwood Publishes on Distanced Sounding Investigations Using Computers


Kenneth Sherwood's article "Distanced Sounding: ARLO as a tool for the analysis and visualization of versioning phenomena within poetry audio" has been published by _Jacket 2_, a serial sponsored by the University of Pennsylvania Center for Programs in Contemporary Writing. In "Distanced Sounding," Sherwood outlines a research program for applying machine learning and computation to large scale questions posed by digital archives.

The article is available online and contributes to a series of working papers on experimental digital analyses of poetry audio: Jacket2

Sherwood is Associate Professor of English at IUP and co-director of the Center for Digital Humanities and Culture. He teaches poetics, avant-garde writing, and digital humanities in the doctoral program for Literature and Criticism.

Charles Ellwood Jones (AWOL: The Ancient World Online)

Open Access Journal: Σχολή: Ancient Philosophy and the Classical Tradition : A Journal of the Centre for Ancient Philosophy and the Classical Tradition

[First posted in AWOL 26 August 2013, updated 2 March 2015]

Have you taken the AWOL User Survey?

Σχολή. Философское антиковедение и классическая традиция: Журнал Центра изучения древней философии и классической традиции -- Ancient Philosophy and the Classical Tradition : A Journal of the Centre for Ancient Philosophy and the Classical Tradition
ISSN: 1995-4336 (Online)
ISSN: 1995-4328 (Print)
http://www.nsu.ru/classics/schole/schole-cover.JPG

Домашняя
Статьи
Переводы
Публикации
Рецензии
Объявления
Контакты


Volume I (2007)
 
Issue 1
 
Issue 2
 
 
Volume II (2008)
 
Issue 1
 
Issue 2
 
 
Volume III (2009)
 
Issue 1
The Neopytagoreans
 
 
Issue 2
 
 
Volume IV (2010)
 
Issue 1
History and Philosophy of Law
 
Issue 2
Iamblichus of Chalcis
 
 
Volume V (2011)
 
Issue 1
 
Issue 2
Cosmology and Astronomy
 
 
Volume VI (2012)
 
Issue 1
Ancient Music
 
Issue 2
Ancient Psychology
 
Volume VII (2013)
 
Issue 1
Kosmos and Psyche
 
Issue 2
 
 













































































Volume VIII (2014)
 
Issue 1
The Platonic Tradition
 
Issue 2
Choice. Law. Power. Argument
 
Volume IX (2015)
 
Issue 1
The Natural and Human Sciences in Antiquity
 

See the full List of Open Access Journals in Ancient Studies

March 02, 2015

Charles Ellwood Jones (AWOL: The Ancient World Online)

Open Access Journal: Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt

Have you taken the AWOL User Survey?

Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt
http://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/public/journals/98/pageHeaderTitleImage_de_DE.jpg
Das Archäologische Korrespondenzblatt, das vom Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum herausgegeben wird, erscheint vierteljährlich und informiert die Fachwelt in kurzen Beiträgen über neue Ergebnisse der archäologischen Forschung. Es versteht sich als aktuelle wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift zu Themen der vor- und frühgeschichtlichen sowie provinzialrömischen Archäologie und ihrer Nachbarwissenschaften in Europa. Neben der Forschungsdiskussion finden hier Neufunde und kurze Analysen von überregionalem Interesse ihren Platz.
Der Umfang der Artikel beträgt bis zu 20 Druckseiten; Beiträge auf Englisch und Französisch werden ebenfalls angenommen.

Unabhängige Redaktoren begutachten die eingereichten Artikel (peer review).

Das Archäologische Korrespondenzblatt wird zukünftig zeitverzögert mit einem Jahrgang Abstand über die Universitätsbibliothek Heidelberg digital erscheinen.

Alle Zeitschriftenbeiträge erhalten einen digitalen Objektbezeichner (Digital Object Identifier, doi), der das Zitieren und Verlinken der Artikel vereinfacht. Das Hosting für das Archäologische Korrespondenzblatt  online übernimmt die Universität Heidelberg, die Kooperationspartner in diesem Projekt ist und die Langzeitarchivierung der Beiträge garantiert.


Juan Garcés (Digitised Manuscripts Blog)

Canterbury Cathedral and Magna Carta

The countdown continues until the opening of our major exhibition, Magna Carta: Law, Liberty, Legacy. Today we're delighted to announce that the show will feature a number of stunning loans from Canterbury Cathedral, which will illuminate the story of how and why Magna Carta was first granted in 1215. As...

Gabriel Bodard, et al. (Standards for Networking Ancient Prosopographies)

FAQ: What are the limits of SNAP content?

We have often been asked:

“SNAP” contains the word “Ancient,” which suggests a rather inclusive definition of classical antiquity, but “DRGN” includes “Greco-Roman”, which implies more traditional restriction. Are you interested in prosopographies from outside the strictly Greek and Roman world?

Yes! (Short answer.)

Longer answer is in two parts:

Antirrhinum(1) yes, we’re certainly interested in prosopographies and other person-data lists from outside the classical Greco-Roman world. The second half of the acronym, “DRGN,” was unfortunately massaged to suggest the word “snapdragon,” and I now regret the implication that we might be either linguistically, culturally or geographically limited to Greece and Rome;

(2) we expect the protocols and tools developed by SNAP eventually to be of relevance to all places and periods, but we’re defining our initial scope as “the Ancient Mediterranean and geographically or chronologically intersecting cultures.” So we’ll start with Greece and Rome and Egypt, perhaps Persian, Phoenician, Punic, Tifinag, Iberic, Celtic, etc., include dynastic Egypt and the Byzantine world, and slowly spread outward from there.

ChinaSo if you’re asking that question because you have a prosopography of Ancient India or China, Mediaeval Arabia, a catalogue of Celtic or old Norse personal names, or Sumerian/Babylonian person lists—then yes! We do want to hear from you. There will almost certainly be at least a one-person overlap between any two prosopographies in our collection eventually, and even if they weren’t, a single virtual authority of ancient persons from all world cultures will still be a valuable resource.

EAGLE News: Europeana Network of Ancient Greek and Latin Epigraphy

Inscribed Monuments in Arachne: The Votive Monument of Atarbos

One of the most fascinating (and celebrated) inscribed monument in the Arachne collection is the base of a votive offering from the Acropolis of Athens.

Votive offering of Atarbos: central part

In 1852 a basis of a group of bronze statues was discovered on the west end of the Acropolis in Athens, incorporated in the so called Beulé Gate. The basis consist of two blocks that were clamped together. The bronze group has disappeared but on the top of the basis it is still possible to view the traces of the footprints of the statues, both on the left block (two holes), and on the right (four footprints). The fine relief that decorates the basis can still be appreciated in full. The two parts that make the basis portrait a series of 17 figures moving from left to right, who are clearly separated and arranged in different groups. The analysis of these figures, together with the inscriptions that were carved on each of the blocks, tells a fascinating story about the Athenian society.

On the left block, seven men, fully clad in mantles (hymatia), are advancing to the right. Between the first and the last four figures there is a space that is well visible on the image.

The left block

On the right border, right before the end of the block, a woman is standing facing the advancing men. This mysterious female character was previously wrongly identified with a (male) chorus leader (choregos).

The right block shows a somewhat specular arrangement: close to the division, a female figures stands facing the viewer, with her gaze turned toward two groups of four young men. These youths are also moving to the right, but their movement is more accentuated and advance on the tips of their toes. They are also not clad, but naked, and wear only an helmet on their head and the round hoplitic shield on their outstreached left arms; the fist on their right arms are clenched.

The right block

On the upper fascia of the right block a dedication is preserved fairly well; the text, as edited in IG II2 3025, reads:

[πυρριχ]ισταῖς νικήσας Ἄταρβος Λυ[σ— — ἀνέθηκε. Κ]ηφισό[δ]ωρο[ς ἦρχε].

The text as reported can be translated as: “having won with [pyrrich]istai Atarbos son of Ly[s... dedicated. C]ephiso[d]oro[s was the archon].”

Short as it is, this inscriptions is very informative and helpful to attempt a reconstruction of the context for this monument. First of all, the name of the author of the offer (Atarbos) is preserved in full. Since the name is not very frequent in Attica, attempts can be made to identify this figure with greater precision [2]. Most likely, he must be identified with a man from the deme of Thorikos, and it is very likely that this indication was following the patronimic in the gap. Another important indication that is preserved is the name of the archon; since two Cephisodoros’s are known in the list of magistrates, two dates are possible for Atarbos’ victory: either 366-5 or 323-2. While the former is the date indicated in Arachne, the latter is generally preferred today, since a dating to the last quarter of the IV century would be more in agreement with some stylistic details of the relief.

Although the term pyrrichistai is partially lost, its reconstruction does not pose any problem. Indeed, the inscription confirms the identifications of the eight young dancers in the right block. They are dancers of the pyrriché, the most important and best documented weapon dance in Ancient Greece. Legends about the origin of the dance were various and widespread throughout the Greek world, but a tradition linked the dance with the figure of the goddess Athena, who first invented the dance to celebrate her birth (Lucian, Dial. Deorum 13) or her victory over the Titans (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 7,72,7). Competitions of choruses dancing the pyrriché were held at the Panatenaia, as it is mentioned twice by the defender of Lysias’ Oration 21 (21.1 and 21.4). The second passage (quoted from the Perseus Project) reads:

Then, later, I was appointed to produce a chorus of children, and spent more than fifteen minae. In the archonship of Eucleides1 I produced comic drama for Cephisodorus and won a victory, spending on it, with the dedication of the equipment, sixteen minae; and at the Little Panathenaea I produced a chorus of beardless pyrrhic dancers, and spent seven minae.

Lysias, 21.4

Plato gives a vivid description of the dance, writing that “the warlike division”

being distinct from the pacific, one may rightly term “pyrrhiche”; it represents modes of eluding all kinds of blows and shots by swervings and duckings and side-leaps upward or crouching; and also the opposite kinds of motion, which lead to active postures of offence, when it strives to represent the movements involved in shooting with bows or darts, and blows of every description.

Plato, Laws, 815a

The pyrriché is often depicted on the Athenian vases, like the white-figured lekythos in the image below, where a pyrrichistes dances at the music of an aulos-player.

Attische Lekythos des Athena-Malers

But who are the men on the left block? Even if the inscription on that side is much more damaged, some clear indication can still be obtained. As printed in the Inscriptiones Graecae (IG II2 2035), the text reads:

νική[σας κυκλίωι χο]ρῶι.

which can be translated as “having won with the cyclic chorus”, i.e. the chorus performing the dithyramb. In this very lacunary text, however, only νικήσας and χορῶι can be considered certain. So, once again, the left block too celebrates a victory in a choral competition. The whole monument therefore is dedicated to glory the success of Atarbos as choregos, the wealthy Athenian citizen who took up the civic duty of financing the preparation of the choral performances in the Athenian religious festivals. Two victories, actually! One victory was obtained by Atarbos’ chorus in the pyrriché, the other, which is remembered in the left block, most likely in the very prestigious dithyramb competition.

But who are the female characters that are placed in specular position at the end and the beginning of the group of dancers? Various hypotheses have been made, but archaeologists have not reached a consensus.

And why the men in the right block are disposed in such an articulate series, with two separated groups and one figure isolated on the left?

Charles Ellwood Jones (AWOL: The Ancient World Online)

New Open Access Journal: Commentaria Classica: Studi di filologia greca e latina

Have you taken the AWOL User Survey?

Commentaria Classica: Studi di filologia greca e latina
ISSN: 2283-5652
http://w.commentariaclassica.altervista.org/Commentaria_Classica/Home_files/shapeimage_2.png

Ecco il primo numero di Commentaria Classica. Studi di filologia greca e latina. Il campo di indagine della serie è rappresentato dai testi greci e latini dall’età arcaica fino all’umanesimo. L’approccio è prevalentemente filologico e critico-testuale e, naturalmente, può essere dato ampio spazio anche alla storia degli studi classici.
Commentaria Classica si avvale di un qualificato comitato scientifico internazionale e mette in atto un’attenta selezione del materiale sottoposto per la pubblicazione mediante il sistema di peer review anonimo.
La serie è diffusa esclusivamente online (in formato .pdf).
Le lingue accettate per la pubblicazione sono l'italiano, l'inglese, il francese, il tedesco, lo spagnolo e il latino.
Trovate le norme editoriali da seguire in un’apposita sezione nella pagina principale.
Chi fosse interessato alla pubblicazione può inviare il proprio contributo in formato .doc o .docx all'indirizzo commentaria.classica@gmail.com
Vol 1- 2014
  1. [7]
  2. Studi
  3. [11-21]
  4. [ 23-37]
  5. [39-53]
  6. [55-75]
  7. [77-107]
  8. [109-117]
  9. Note di lettura
  10. [121-125]

Source: Journalism Code, Context & Community

Event Roundup, Mar 2

By Erika Owens

Event Roundup, Mar 2

Check Source later this week for a full rundown of all the ways to connect with OpenNews at NICAR.

Deadlines

Know of any upcoming fellowship or conference proposal deadlines? Have an upcoming event? Let us know: source@mozillafoundation.org.

Archeomatica: Tecnologie per i Beni Culturali

Un'inedita fruizione del patrimonio culturale della Grecia Salentina

I dodici casi studio del progetto di ricerca In-Culture - vincitore del bando Miur Smart Cities and Communities and Social Innovation - raccontati attraverso la voce di personaggi reali e immaginari con tre “audio racconti” e nove “audio lettere”. Parte da qui l'incontro con Sherazade - Storymaker for travelling, cantastorie digitale nato nel 2012 con il bando Principi Attivi della Regione Puglia, per scoprire il Salento con parole nuove, che permette di ascoltare sul proprio smartphone voci e storie del luogo in cui ci si trova.

Applicazioni mobile di Realtà Aumentata per archeologia e restauro al Convegno 3D ARCH

Dal 25 al 27 febbraio 2015 si è svolto ad Avila, in Spagna il convegno “3D ARCH” - 3D Virtual Reconstruction and Visualization of Complex Architectures. All'interno del Convegno anche la società ETT ha presentato un proprio lavoro realizzato in collaborazione con il Dipartimento DICCA della Facoltà di Architettura dell'Università di Genova.

Le novità del Salone del Restauro di Ferrara 2015

Il Salone del Restauro di Ferrara annuncia le prime grandi novità del programma della XXII edizione, a partire dal cambio di data, che quest’anno vede la manifestazione dare appuntamento a primavera inoltrata, dal 6 al 9 maggio, al via con Expo Milano 2015 del quale ha ottenuto l’importante patrocinio, rientrando quindi tra gli oltre 1.300 eventi culturali in programma durante i mesi dell'esposizione mondiale, presentati sul sito istituzionale VeryBello.

Roger Pearse (Thoughts on Antiquity, Patristics, putting things online, and more)

Did St Nicholas of Myra / Santa Claus punch Arius at the Council of Nicaea?

In many places online we can find the statement that St Nicholas of Myra – the basis for Santa Claus – was present at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, where he punched Arius in the mouth.  So … is it true?

Unfortunately we have almost no historical information at all about any St Nicholas of Myra – our information is entirely based on Saint’s Lives of him, of which the earliest are 9th century, and the latest are modern compilations based on medieval collections.  All these Lives are really closer to folk-tales than to history, and they reflect the accumulations of popular legends.  Some of them do have Nicholas attending the Council of Nicaea; but they do not contain the story of Nicholas punching Arius.

The main collection of source materials about Nicholas is by Gustav Anrich,[1] and in this I found what I suspect is the answer.

Before I look at the data, let’s summarise what it says.  Sometime in the middle ages, the story about his attendance at Nicaea was “improved” to show him slapping “an Arian”.  Over time, this turned into a story about him slapping Arius himself.  The story is now a standard item in Greek Orthodox tradition, and is embedded in their handbook of icon-painting.

On to the data.

In Anrich volume 1, p.459, in the section devoted to testimonia, there is an extract from a Latin text (!) by a certain Petrus de Natalibus, a Venetian.  Petrus in 1370 was bishop of Equilio (Jesolo) near Venice, and died around 1400.  The text of his work reads:

Fertur beatum Nicolaum jam senem Nicaeno concilio interfuisse et quemdam Arrianum zelo fidei in maxillam percussisse ob idque a concilio mitra et pallio privatum extitisse; propter quod ut plurimum sine mitra depingitur.  Sed dum aliquando missam beatae virginis, cujus erat devotus, in pontificalibus celebraret et privationem mitrae et pallii defleret quasi zelo nimio fidei ablata: ecce, cunctis videntibus, duo angeli eidem astiterunt, quorum unus mitram, alius pallium sibi divinitus restituerunt.   Et extunc insignia reassumpsit sibi caelitus restituta.[2]

It happened that saint Nicholas, now an old man, was present at the Council of Nicaea,  and out of jealousy of faith struck a certain Arian in the jaw, on account of which it is recorded that he was deprived of his mitre and pallium; on account of which he is often depicted without a mitre.  …[3]

This tells us that the story had arisen by whenever Petrus wrote these words – it is really difficult to find much about him! -, and was known in the West, or at least in Venice.  So it probably had existed for some time at that point.  But at this point it is not Arius himself – only “a certain Arian”.

The next piece of data is an extract from a biography by an obscure Damaskenos Monachus, written in the second half of the 16th century.  Apparently he lived in the second half of the 16th century, and may (or may not) be identical with the man of that name who was Bishop of Liti and Rendini in 1564; and Metropolitan of Naupaktos and Arta in 1570.  He composed a biography of St Nicholas of Myra, based on earlier accounts, which he included in his Thesaurus.  The oldest edition of his work was printed in Venice in 1570.  Anrich obtained this information from E. Legrand, Bibliographie hellenique II (1885), p.12 f., which contains little more than you have above.[4]

Anrich states that the Vita of Damaskenos is a vulgarisation of the Vita by Simon Metaphrastes, who created the standard Greek hagiographical texts in the 11th century.  I don’t know if any edition of Damaskinos can be found online?

Anrich gives the Greek of the extract.  Yesterday I posted this, and an appeal for a translation.  A kind corrrespondent obliged:

Damascenos the Monk:  Life of saint Nicholas the wonder-worker:  Large collection of lives of saints, or “Great Book of Saints” by Const. Chr. Doukakis.   Athens, 20 December, 1896, pages 171-190.

10.  p.179-180.  After the king seated himself on the throne, one hundred and fifty nine fathers seated themselves at either side of him, both they and Arius arguing with much unease.  Saint Nicholas, noticing that Arius was about to quash all the archpriests and moved by divine zeal, rose up and gave him a slap that shook all his members. Complaining, Arius says to the king: “O most just king, is it fair, before your royal highness, for one to strike another?  If he has something to say, let him speak as the other fathers do; if he is ignorant, let him remain silent as his like are. For what reason does he slap me in the presence of your highness?”  Hearing this, the king was greatly disappointed and said to the archpriests: “Holy archpriests, it is the law, that whosoever raises his hand before the king to strike someone, that it should be cut off. I leave this to you, so that your holiness(es) might be the judge.”  The archpriests replied, saying: “Your majesty, that the archpriest has acted wrongly all of us confess it; except that we beseech you, let us unstate him now and imprison him, and after the dissolution of the council, we shall then convict him.”

Having unstated and imprisoned him, that night Christ and the Holy Mother Theotokos appeared in prison and said: “Nicholas, why are you imprisoned?”  And the saint replied: “For loving You”. Christ then said to him: “Take this,” and gave him the holy gospel; the Holy Mother Theotokos gave him the archpriestly omophorion (scapular).  The next day some acquaintances of his brought him bread and they saw that he was freed of his fetters and on his shoulder he was wearing the omophorion, while reading the holy gospel he was holding in his hands. Having asked him where he found them, he told them the whole truth.  Having learnt of this, the king took him out of the prison and asked for forgiveness, as did all the others.  After the dissolution of the council, all the archpriests returned home, as did saint Nicholas, to his province.

This is the earliest text known to me, and evidently to Anrich, which records Nicholas punching Arius.

Anrich adds:

Die Darstellung der Nicaea-Episode stimmt mit den Angaben des Malbuches (unten S. 463,15 ff u. 33 ff); die nur in den Hauptzügen mit diesen beiden stimmende Dartellung von Petrus de Natalibus beweist, daß der Grundstock der Legende mindestens ins 14. Jh. zurückgeht.

The presentation of the Nicaea episode is consistent with the information provided by the Painting book (below, p 463, 15 et seq u 33 et seq.); since only the more significant features of these two versions agree with the story as given by Petrus de Natalibus, this shows that the foundation of the legend goes back at least to the 14th century.

The “Painting book” (I don’t know the English name of this work: in German it is the Malbuch) is the 18th century manual of iconography from Mount Athos, produced by Dionysius of Foura.  This gives the legends to be attached to icons.  The first reads as follows:

“The holy and ecumenical 1st Synod in Nicaea….
And Arius, standing, also in hieratic vestment, and standing before him, Saint Nicholas with arm outstretched to slap him.”

The second one says:

“The saint in prison, receiving the gospel from Christ and the omophorion from the Holy Mother. – Prison, and at the centre is the saint and Christ at his right holding a gospel; at his left the Theotokos holding an omphorion: they are giving these to him.”

The presence of the item in the Handbook shows that the topic is a standard one for icons.  So we may presume that the story reaches us today from Greek Orthodox sources, for whom it is a traditional motif, depicted in their churches.

Here is an example of the scene in a fresco from the Soumela monastery (via Livius.org):

St Nicholas of Myra slapping Arius at the Council of Nicaea.  Fresco at Soumela.  By Marco Prins. Via Livius.org.

St Nicholas of Myra slapping Arius at the Council of Nicaea. Icon at Soumela. Via Livius.org.

To summarise again: there is no ancient evidence whatever that St Nicholas punched or slapped Arius at the First Council of Nicaea.  The story is not found in any text before the late 14th century, and even that one mentions only “a certain Arian”.  In the next two centuries the legend mutates into Nicholas slapping Arius; and is then disseminated in works of popular fiction, and by the paintings of icons.  It has no historical basis whatever.

UPDATE: I am advised that ράπισμα means slap, not punch.  My correspondent adds: ” it was a slap intended to shock Arius back to his senses”.

  1. [1] G. Anrich, Hagios Nikolaos: Der Heilige Nikolaos in der Griechischen Kirche, 2 vols, 1913.  Accessible to Americans at Hathi Trust.
  2. [2] Anrich gives a reference: Petrus de Natalibus, Catalogus sanctorum et gestorum eorum ex diversis voluminibus collectus, Lugduni 1508, Fol. VII.  The English title appears to be Legends of the Saints.  Various editions are present on Google Books.  In the 1543 edition, the text is on folio Vb, at the top of the right-hand column.
  3. [3] Translation is mine.
  4. [4] This volume can be found online at Google Books, but not without considerable effort.  It is here (US only).

Bill Caraher (The New Archaeology of the Mediterranean World)

Mobilizing the Past Workshop Review, Part 1

This weekend’s Mobilizing the Past for a Digital Future: The Potential of Digital Archaeology conference was great in every way. It was well-organized, collegial, and very useful. Videos of the various papers will be (or maybe are already) available on the web and I hope the organizers consider some kind of publication of proceedings. Having been to several of these conferences over the past few years, I feel confident in saying that this event reflected the coming of age of digital archaeology. While it is probably too soon to call the all archaeology digital, the range of presentations and tools on display essentially eliminated the possibility of a non-digital practices. 

NewImage

Since my notes and comments on the conference are pretty expansive, I think I’ll break it into two posts. The first group of observations today are the positive things that I learned at the conference. The observations tomorrow will be a bit more probing and critical, but nevertheless a positive outcome from the conference:

1. Collegiality. The level of collegiality at this event was remarkable. There was a genuine effort to make the various projects, programs, and approaches presented talk to one another. Folks even made a genuine effort to bring my (perhaps overstated) luddite critique into the fold and to engage seriously the ideas and issues that I was attempting to explore. In fact, outbursts of apologizing punctuated the event as scholars let their passion for various approaches and platforms slide toward critique, but these apologies were never really necessary. It is clear that that an overwhelming sense of respect and academic humility permeates the entire digital archaeology community.  

2. Paper is technology. This was a key refrain that echoed through many of the papers. The technology of paper notebooks and recording forms shaped the social structure of archaeology and the structure of the information collected at trench side. Digital tools offer new models for both archaeological organization and new methods of information collection. Our generation of archaeologists will be the last to remember (or continue to use) paper to collect information in the field at any significant scale and the kind of information that archaeologists collect, analyze, and archive will start to diversify digitally mediated 3D models, video, mass photography, and illustrations become the norm. John Wallrodt’s key note set the stage for this conversation and presenters used it as a constant point of reference. 

3. Archaeology and Design. Chris Motz presented one of my favorite papers at the conference. One of the most obvious things that a guy like Motz brought to infield data recording was a sense of design. His elegant forms on the iPad led the archaeologist through the process of constructing an comprehensive and consistent infield dataset. For example, filling in the digital recording form produced an illustration of the physical tag that the archaeologist would copy onto the paper tag attached to the artifact bag. This simple tag design then continued through the entire digital workflow integrating the digital and physical records of field work. Likewise, consistent icons, colors, and other visual cues provide structure for the recording workflow and, presumably, improved the efficiency by visually demonstrating the relationship between certain data sets.         

4. Bringing Data in the Field. A few of the papers discussed the intriguing potential of bringing both project data as well as secondary publications into the field. I could immediately appreciate the advantage of having the full data set of a project in the field at our finger tips especially in dynamic visual forms could provide field teams with valuable information that would lead to better decision making. More than that, it offers the possibility of overlaying earlier views of the landscape, site, or trench to complicate (in a productive way) what the archaeologists sees.

5. Publication Options. Presentation by Eric Kansa of Open Context, Michael Ashley of Mukurtu, and Shawn Ross of FAIMS demonstrated the publication of archaeological data is keeping up with our ability to generate it. FAIMS and Mukurtu, in particular, demonstrate how publication can exist as part of the same workflow as data generation in the field. It seems clear to me that a major fork in digital archaeology involves an integrated workflow from trench side to data publication within a robust (and dynamic) application. 

6. Bespoke. By the end of Saturday, the word bespoke was being used to describe both applications and particular data structures made within those applications. The era of standardized data models is well and truly over and digital archaeologists have come to recognize that no matter how similar two data sets appear, comparing them in the most productive way remains a process best accomplished within the infinitely flexible context of the human mind. What digital archaeology can do, however, is to demonstrate relationship between data sets and assist in hypothesis building. The messy act of comparison – as a step toward understanding – remains a human endeavor.

7. Data and Efficiency. It was unsurprising that so many projects discussed how digital tools improved the accuracy and efficiency of data collection in the field. Indeed, some of the papers presented some outstanding of examples of streamlined recording and John Wallrodt’s keynote imagined a new, digitally mediate, structure of field work that would perhaps be more at home in CRM environment than an academic project. Despite such assertions of efficiency and the common-sense appearance of improved workflow, there were almost no arguments that used evidence from actual field practice to show how great an improvement digital archaeology actually managed. Informal conversations at the event made clear that such data likely exists, but none of the presenters deployed it during their at the conference.  

More tomorrow as I need to scurry off and catch up on my day job…


Archeomatica: Tecnologie per i Beni Culturali

Proroga Call for Paper Prima Conferenza Internazionale su tecniche e materiali di doratura nell'arte europea

E' stata prorogata al 15 marzo 2015 la Call for Papers per la Prima Conferenza Internazionale su tecniche e materiali di dorature nell'arte europea (GILT-EnArt2015) in programma all'Università di Évora da il 25 e il 27 Maggio 2015. L'evento, incluso nella strategia di dissemination del progetto di ricerca GILT-Teller (PTDC/EAT-EAT/116700/2010) promosso con i fondi della Fondazione Portoghese per la Scienza e la Tecnologia, vuole riunire tutte le comunità di storia dell'arte, conservazione e scienze applicate dall'Europa e nei paesi oltremare testimoniando simili o differenti tradizioni della tecnica di doratura nella realizzazione di manufatti patrimonio culturale.