scholarly journals An Inscription from Prienè

1883 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 237-242
Author(s):  
E. L. Hicks

The following inscription was copied by Mr. A. S. Murray when travelling with Mr. Newton in Asia Minor in 1870, ‘from a stelè at the door of a house at Kelibesch.’ It has been put into my hands for publication because the inscribed marbles brought from Prienè by Mr. Pullan in 1870, and presented to the British Museum by the Society of Dilettanti, have been prepared by me for the press, and are now in course of publication. They will form a portion of Part iii. of the Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum. Kelibesch is a Turkish village on the southern slope of Mt. Mykalè, a short distance from the ruins of the temple of Athenè Polias at Prienè. A description of it will be found in Chandler's Travels in Asia Minor, vol. i., p. 197. Mr. Murray's memoranda do not furnish any account of the size or colour of the marble employed for this stelè: but it is evidently entire at the top and right side; the left-hand edge is slightly injured, but a good deal is broken off at the bottom.

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-23
Author(s):  
Jonathan R. Trotter

Abstract Many diaspora communities identify not only with a distant homeland but also with others distant from the homeland. How exactly do these intercommunal connections take place and contribute toward a shared identity? What specific aspects of diasporan identity are created or strengthened? What practices are involved? This study will begin to answer these questions through investigating two practices which were widespread among diaspora Jewish communities during the last two centuries of the Second Temple period (1st cent. B.C.E.–1st cent. C.E.). First, we will show how sending offerings and making pilgrimages to the Jerusalem temple from these communities enabled regular intercommunal contact. Then, we will suggest some ways in which these voluntary practices reinforced a cohesive Jewish identity and the importance of the homeland, especially the city of Jerusalem and the temple, for many diaspora Jews, whether they lived in Alexandria, Rome, Asia Minor, or Babylonia.


Archaeologia ◽  
1817 ◽  
Vol 18 ◽  
pp. 340-343
Author(s):  
Edward Daniel Clarke

It is not attaching too high a degree of importance to the study of Celtic antiquities, to maintain, that, owing to the attention now paid to it in this country, a light begins to break in upon that part of ancient history, which, beyond every other, seemed to present a forlorn investigation. All that relates to the aboriginal inhabitants of the north of Europe, would be involved in darkness but for the enquiries now instituted respecting Celtic sepulchres. From the information already received, concerning these sepulchres, it may be assumed, as a fact almost capable of actual demonstration, that the mounds, or barrows, common to all Great Britain, and to the neighbouring continent, together with all the tumuli fabled by Grecian and by Roman historians as the tombs of Giants, are so many several vestiges of that mighty family of Titan-Celts who gradually possessed all the eastern shores of the Mediterranean, and who extended their colonies over all the countries where Cyclopéan structures may be recognized; whether in the walls of Crotona, or the temple at Stonehénge; in the Cromlechs of Wales, or the trilithal monuments of Cimbrica Chersonesus; in Greece, or in Asia-Minor; in Syria, or in Egypt. It is with respect to Egypt alone, that an exception might perhaps be required; but history, while it deduces the origin of the worship of Minerva, at Sais, from the Phrygians, also relates of this people, that they were the oldest of mankind. The Cyclopéan architecture of Egypt may therefore be referred originally to the same source; but, as in making the following Observations brevity must be a principal object, it will be necessary to divest them of every thing that may seem like a Dissertation; and confine the statement, here offered, to the simple narrative of those facts, which have led to its introduction.


1929 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-13
Author(s):  
W. R. Lethaby

Amongst the drawings in the Elgin Collection at the British Museum are many from the sculptures of the Parthenon made by William Pars in 1765–6. Two of the drawings representing the long middle slab of the Eastern Frieze, and the slab next to it on the left, are exceptional in not being merely pencil drawings; these are tinted with the brush in sepia and are highly finished and wonderfully delicate. They are not signed, but it may be safely assumed that they are by Pars. Pars was sent out with the Chandler expedition, organised by the Society of Dilettanti in 1764, partly for the purpose of completing the work of Stuart and Revett in Athens from 1751 to 1753. Pars was engaged for several months in drawing the sculptures of the Parthenon. This work, according to Chandler, he executed ‘with diligence, fidelity and courage.’ Courage was needed, for he drew the frieze of the cella from the stone beam of the peristyle. He recorded all of it that was then on the building, together with some slabs which had been removed from their places. At a meeting of the Society of Dilettanti on December 2, 1766, ‘A great variety of Views and Drawings of Basso relievos of the Temple of Minerva at Athens, and others, were produced by Mr. Pars, which appear'd to the Committee to be done with Taste and Accurateness.’ The original tinted view of the east front of the Temple now hanging in the Elgin Gallery shows his powers of observation and minute record. In this view the metopes have their subjects really drawn in little spaces not much more than a quarter of an inch square.


1963 ◽  
Vol 58 ◽  
pp. 30-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. N. Coldstream

On the east slope of Lower Gypsades hill, about 100 metres west of the Temple Tomb, a chamber tomb came to light in August 1958, when a cutting for a new water pipe was driven through the area (A in Plate 9 a). In the course of this operation, part of a plain larnax (iii) was sliced off, and much earth removed from the west end of the collapsed chamber: at no point, however, had the municipal workmen penetrated to the tomb floor.The chamber was approached by a sloping dromos (Plate 9 a: length 2·80 metres; max. width 1 metre), roughly cut into the natural kouskouras rock: its walls were approximately perpendicular. Although the gradient varied a good deal, there was no suggestion of a stairway.The blocking wall was found in good condition. Of especial interest were the numerous fragments of larnakes that had been built into its fabric: some of them could be recognized as belonging to each of the three fragmentary larnakes (i, ii, v) whose scattered pieces were found below and around the two undisturbed burials in the chamber (iii, iv). We may thus distinguish two periods in the history of the tomb: larnakes i, ii, and v were evidently smashed up in order to make room for iv and iii, which must have been deposited in that order. The debris of v was found under iv, with a few adult bones in its wreckage. Part of i lay on the floor near the south-west corner, where two plain vases (2, 3) were found in situ, hence, also, came most of the fragments of the fine L.M. IIIA 2 stirrup vase (1), although its other pieces were scattered all over the floor of the tomb. This small group of offerings may belong to the disturbed adult skeleton, whose skull lay up against the lower edge of iii. Curiously, some fragments of i and ii were also found above the broken lid of iv (Plate 9 b): perhaps the lid of the later larnax was accidentally smashed at the time of the funeral, in which case the debris from earlier burials could have been piled up above it, as a rough and ready means of protection.


1916 ◽  
Vol 36 ◽  
pp. 65-86 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. H. Smith

In the following paper, certain reliefs are described and illustrated, which have been added in comparatively recent years to the collection of the British Museum.(1) Votive relief of Zeus Stratios. This relief, which was acquired in the summer of 1914 from a private owner, is of exceptional interest as an addition to the Museum which contains the remains of the Mausoleum.The relief is of white marble, and consists of a sculptured panel 35·5 cm. wide, and so far as extant, 21 cm. high. It is surmounted by a pediment, with acroterial ornaments. The whole subject measures 49 × 45 cm.‘In 1868 it was in the court yard of a house at Piali (Tegea) in the neighbourhood of the temple of Athena Alea. It had been found on the spot with some other antiquities.’ So M. Foucart, who has recently discussed the relief at length in the Monuments Piot.


2020 ◽  
pp. 125-156
Author(s):  
Billie Melman

Focusing on one archaeological mound, Tell ed-Duweir, in the lowland region of Palestine, in the vicinity of Hebron, identified as biblical Lachish, the fortress city in the kingdom of Judah, Chapter 4 moves between London, the Tell, and its neighbouring villages. The chapter is a history of a landmark excavation, which uncovers the variety of its archaeological, biblical, anthropological, social, and political layers. Drawing on a wealth of written and visual materials at the Wellcome Institute, the British Museum Archives, the Israel Antiquities Authority, the National Archives, as well as on the press and archaeologists’ records, the chapter relates the identification of the Tell as Lachish, the discovery of the famous Lachish Letters (in pre-Exilic Hebrew), and their effect on Biblical Archaeology and epigraphy, to the rise of new fields of knowledge such as physical anthropology and anthropometrics. The chapter argues that the excavation project was regarded by archaeologists as a means of modernizing rural Palestine and the lives of Palestinian peasants and labourers. It recovers the modernizers’ daily life on the Tell and their representations of it in writing, photography, and documentary films. It also recoups the process of the Tell’s expropriation, as a historical monument, by the mandate authorities. Alongside the reports of archaeologists like James Leslie Starkey (who was murdered on his way from the Tell to the opening of the new Rockefeller museum in Jerusalem), Olga Tufnell, and Charles Inge, the chapter recovers the voices of villagers as they are heard through their petitions to the government about their denied access to the excavated land.


Author(s):  
Clyde E. Fant ◽  
Mitchell G. Reddish

A city with a strong and vibrant Jewish community during the Roman period, as well as a center for the worship of Artemis and home to a significant Christian community, Sardis is an intriguing place to visit for anyone interested in biblical studies or ancient religious history. The partially restored 3rd-century-C.E. synagogue in the city is the largest known synagogue outside Palestine from ancient times. Ancient shops, a bath-gymnasium complex, and the Temple of Artemis provide glimpses of the life of this ancient city. Once the capital of the ancient Lydian Kingdom, Sardis (Sart) lies approximately 60 miles east of Izmir along the modern highway (E96/300) connecting Izmir to Ankara in the Hermus River valley (today called the Gediz River). Portions of the ruins of Sardis are situated adjacent to the highway and are easily accessible. The ancient city was built along the Pactolus River, a tributary of the Hermus, and at the foothills of the Tmolus Mountains. The city’s acropolis was strategically located atop a spur of the Tmolus Mountains. The Tmolus Mountains (or Mt. Tmolus) were, according to some ancient traditions, the birthplace of the gods Dionysus and Zeus. Sardis first came to prominence during the 1st millennium B.C.E. when it served as the center of the powerful Lydian kingdom, which encompassed most of the western half of Asia Minor. The Lydians supposedly were the first to develop a technique to dye wool and also to invent dice games, knucklebones, and other games. (Interestingly, archaeologists found a terra-cotta die in the ruins at Sardis.) Legend says that Midas, the mythical Phrygian king, was able to rid himself of his golden touch by bathing in the Pactolus River. As a result, the sands of the river turned to gold. Though legendary, this account points nonetheless to the enormous wealth enjoyed by the Lydian kingdom. The earliest Lydian rulers belonged to the Heraclid dynasty, which according to Herodotus (5th-century-B.C.E. Greek historian) lasted 505 years. They were succeeded by the Mermnad dynasty, of which the first king was Gyges (r. ca. 680–ca. 652 B.C.E.).


Archaeologia ◽  
1836 ◽  
Vol 26 ◽  
pp. 47-214 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Young Ottley

You are aware that I have, at intervals, employed myself a good deal in the manuscript room of the British Museum, during the last four years, in researches among the Illuminated MSS. of the fifteenth century, on the subject of Costume; for the purpose of helping me to form a right judgment of the ages and country of certain books of wood-engravings, which are known by bibliographers under the name of Block-Books; and are commonly supposed to have given rise to the invention of Typography: for the controversy concerning this subject has long occupied my attention; and, although so many books have been written upon it during the last two centuries, I have become more and more persuaded, that the evidence on both sides must be subjected to a nicer examination, and sifting, than it has yet had, before we can hope to come to a right decision concerning it.


1980 ◽  
Vol 100 ◽  
pp. 182-182 ◽  
Author(s):  
Graham Anderson

Lucian's Timon accuses Zeus of negligence: even his statue at Olympia has not punished the temple-robbers who despoiled it, although it had a δεκάπηχυν κεραυνὸν ἐν τῇ δεξιᾷ(Tim. 4). But according to Lucian’s contemporary Pausanias (v 11.1), the Zeus at Olympia possessed no such weapon; it held a Nike in the right hand, a sceptre in the left. A. M. Harmon (LCL Lucian ii 331) notes that since Pausanias’ testimony is confirmed by numismatic evidence, Lucian must be wrong and ‘the error is odd in so good an observer’. In fact Lucian could be rather careless over such details; but in this case we can hope to account for his mistake. While he must have seen the Zeus at Olympia at some stage, the statue was also an obvious subject for rhetorical ecphrasis and literary elaboration: one thinks of Dio Chrysostom’s Olympicus (Or. xii); and Lucian may well have been as bookish in his approach to works of art as he was in so many ‘cultural’ subjects. In this case the error would easily have arisen if he had read, misread, or misrecollected an accusative of σκηπτός (‘thunderbolt’) for σκῆπτρον (‘sceptre’) in a previous written source; he would then only have had to supply a synonym κεραυνός for the wrong object. The fact that the thunderbolt is in the wrong hand would then have followed easily from the initial error: one does not hurl thunderbolts with the left hand! The obvious risk of confusion between σκηπτόν and σκῆπτρονσκῆπτρον is illustrated by the problem at Plutarch, de Alex. fort.ii (Mor. 338b), where Clearchus becomes tyrant of Heraclea, takes to carrying a σκῆπτρον and calls his son Κεραυνός. The Teubner editor rightly adopts Valckenaer’s σκηπτόν for MSS σκῆπτρον: a tyrant sufficiently uninhibited to call his son Thunder would also be uninhibited enough to carry a replica of a bolt.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document