DOCSLIB.ORG

MASARYKOVA UNIVERZITA Filozofická Fakulta

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
MASARYKOVA UNIVERZITA Filozofická Fakulta MASARYKOVA UNIVERZITA Filozofická fakulta Ústav archeologie a muzeologie Magisterská diplomová práce 2012 Martina Pýchová MASARYKOVA UNIVERZITA Filozofická fakulta Ústav archeologie a muzeologie Klasická archeologie Martina Pýchová Malířství antického Řecka Magisterská diplomová práce Vedoucí práce: Prof. PhDr. Jan Bouzek, DrSc. 2012 Prohlašuji, že jsem diplomovou práci vypracovala samostatně s využitím uvedených pramenů a literatury. …………………………………………….. Ráda bych na tomto místě poděkovala panu prof. PhDr. Janu Bouzkovi, DrSc., za ochotu, odborné vedení a poskytnutí cenných rad při psaní této práce. Obsah I. Úvod.................... ............................................................................................................ 1 II. Vývoj řeckého malířství ................................................................................................. 4 II. 1. Krétsko-mykénská kultura ........................................................................................... 4 II. 2. Temné období a počátky utváření řeckého výtvarného umění .................................... 6 II. 3. Klasické období ............................................................................................................ 9 II. 4. Helénistické období .................................................................................................... 15 III. Technika a barvy - zprávy od antických autorů .......................................................... 19 IV. Zachované řecké malby v oblasti antické Makedonie ................................................ 27 IV. 1. Vergina ..................................................................................................................... 30 IV. 1. 1. Problematické otázky ........................................................................................ 34 IV. 1. 2. Vergina – historie výzkumu: Balla či Aigai ..................................................... 36 IV. 1. 3. Aigai a Edessa ................................................................................................... 46 IV. 1. 4. Hrobka Persefony: Únos Persefony Hádem ..................................................... 48 IV. 1. 5. Průčelí "Filippovy" hrobky: Alexandr s otcem na lovu? .................................. 54 IV. 1. 6. Vlys z "Princovy" hrobky ................................................................................. 66 IV. 1. 7. Malovaný trůn v "Hrobce Eurydiké" ................................................................ 68 IV. 1. 8. Hrobky I a II pod mohylou Bella ..................................................................... 70 IV. 2 Dion - Soteriadisova hrobka ...................................................................................... 73 IV. 3. Pella – cistový monumentální hrob .......................................................................... 77 IV. 4. Lefkádia .................................................................................................................... 79 IV. 4. 1. Kinchova hrobka ............................................................................................... 79 IV. 4. 2. Hrobka podsvětního soudu ............................................................................... 81 IV. 4. 3. Hrobka s palmetami .......................................................................................... 83 IV. 4. 4. Hrobka Lysóna a Kallikléa ............................................................................... 87 IV. 5. Okolí Soluně ............................................................................................................. 88 IV. 5. 1. Makedonská hrobka z Finika ............................................................................ 88 IV. 5. 2. Makedonská hrobka z Agia Athanasia ............................................................. 91 IV. 6. Potidea – malované mramorové klínai ..................................................................... 96 V. Ostatní ukázky řeckých maleb ..................................................................................... 98 V. 1. Thermos ..................................................................................................................... 98 V. 2. Korinthské dřevěné pinaky z Pitsy........................................................................... 102 V. 3. Paestum .................................................................................................................... 103 V. 4. Délos - fragmenty nástěnných maleb ....................................................................... 105 V. 5. Marisa....................................................................................................................... 107 V. 6. Alexandrie: pohřebiště Mustafa Kamel ................................................................... 109 VI. 5. Thrácké mohyly .................................................................................................... 111 VI. 5. 1. Kazanlak ............................................................................................................. 111 VI. 5. 2. Ostrusha .............................................................................................................. 114 VI. 5. 3. Sveshtari ............................................................................................................. 117 VI. 5. 4. Alexandrovo ....................................................................................................... 118 VII. Malované stély ........................................................................................................ 119 VII. 1. Vergina .................................................................................................................. 119 VII. 3. Thessálie – Demetrias ........................................................................................... 121 VII. 4. Alexandrie ............................................................................................................. 123 VII. 4. 1. Pohřebiště Ibrahimieh - Hrobka vojáků ........................................................ 123 VII. 4. 2. Pohřebiště Shatbi ........................................................................................... 125 VII. 4. 2. Pohřebiště Hadra - náhrobek Helixo a Nikanora ........................................... 126 VII. 5. Krymský Chersonesos ........................................................................................... 128 VIII. Vliv řeckého malířství na římské umění ................................................................ 130 VIII. 1. Alexandrova mozaika v Neapoli a malby z makedonských hrobek .................... 130 VIII.2. Malba se scénou lovu z "Filippovy hrobky" ve Vergině vs. mozaika z Palerma – odraz Polygnótovy malby lovu na Kalydonského kance .................................................. 134 VIII.3. Rhadamantys a Aiakos z Lefkádií vs. freska z Boscoreale ................................... 137 IX. Závěr ......................................................................................................................... 139 X. Summary .................................................................................................................... 145 XI. Pouţitá literatura ....................................................................................................... 148 XI. 1. Odborná literatura ................................................................................................... 148 XI. 2. Antické zdroje ......................................................................................................... 161 XI. 3. Internetové zdroje ................................................................................................... 162 Obrazová příloha ........................................................... Chyba! Záložka není definována. I. Úvod Poznání historie řeckého monumentálního malířství je obtíţnější neţ je tomu např. u sochařství. Pro studium řeckého sochařství se nám dochovalo dost památek, abychom mohli sledovat vývoj od minojského aţ po římské období. Zprávy o řeckých sochařích u antických autorů lze alespoň v některých případech spojovat se zachovanými památkami, ale v oblasti malířství jsme se aţ téměř do poloviny 20. století museli spokojit výhradně jen s útrţkovitými zprávami z antických zdrojů, jelikoţ jsme neměli jediný celý dochovaný originál řecké nástěnné malby. I přes skvělé objevy v Lefkádiích (hrobky objevené v letech 1942, 1954 a 1973), ve Vergině (1977) a jinde však zůstává řecké malířství jedním z nejméně známých odvětví řeckého umění. Známe řadu malířů podle jména, někdy s výčtem jejich děl a s časovým zařazením. Můţeme se však jen dohadovat, do jaké míry se zachoval ohlas jejich výtvorů ve vázovém malířství, na náhrobních stélách, ve výzdobě etruských hrobek či v pozdější době na nástěnných malbách římského období. O tom, co známe o řeckém malířství a řeckých malířích, bude pojednávat kapitola II. Malířství hrálo důleţitou roli v uměleckém ţivotě během celé antiky. Nástěnné malby a obrazy byly produkovány ve velkém mnoţství a máme písemné zmínky nejen o slávě jejich tvůrců, ale i o zájmu lidí o vše, co mělo co společného s malířstvím. Bohuţel tato díla nepřeţila – obrazy na dřevěných panelech nebo na plátně či kůţi podlehly ničivé síle času (mnoho z těch nejslavnějších děl bylo odvezeno do Říma, kde zdobila veřejné i soukromé budovy), zatímco velké nástěnné malby zmizely spolu se zdmi, na kterých byly vymalovány, anebo, coţ byl častější případ, se oddrolily spolu s
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Antiquity, Archaeology, and National Imagination in Greece
    CLASSICAL PRESENCES General Editors Lorna Hardwick James I. Porter CLASSICAL PRESENCES The texts, ideas, images, and material culture of ancient Greece and Rome have always been crucial to attempts to appropriate the past in order to authenticate the present. They underlie the mapping of change and the assertion and challenging of values and identities, old and new. Classical Presences brings the latest scholarship to bear on the contexts, theory, and practice of such use, and abuse, of the classical past. The Nation and its Ruins: Antiquity, Archaeology, and National Imagination in Greece YANNIS HAMILAKIS 1 3 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford ox2 6dp Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With oYces in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York ß Yannis Hamilakis 2007 The moral rights of the author have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) First published 2007 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization.
    [Show full text]
  • Hamilakis Nation and Its Ruins.Pdf
    CLASSICAL PRESENCES General Editors Lorna Hardwick James I. Porter CLASSICAL PRESENCES The texts, ideas, images, and material culture of ancient Greece and Rome have always been crucial to attempts to appropriate the past in order to authenticate the present. They underlie the mapping of change and the assertion and challenging of values and identities, old and new. Classical Presences brings the latest scholarship to bear on the contexts, theory, and practice of such use, and abuse, of the classical past. The Nation and its Ruins: Antiquity, Archaeology, and National Imagination in Greece YANNIS HAMILAKIS 1 3 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford ox2 6dp Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With oYces in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York ß Yannis Hamilakis 2007 The moral rights of the author have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) First published 2007 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization.
    [Show full text]
  • Kent Kimliğini Yansitmada Müzelerin Rolü: Selanik Müzelerinden Örnekler
    T.C. İSTANBUL ÜNİVERSİTESİ SOSYAL BİLİMLER ENSTİTÜSÜ MÜZE YÖNETİMİ BİLİM DALI YÜKSEK LİSANS TEZİ KENT KİMLİĞİNİ YANSITMADA MÜZELERİN ROLÜ: SELANİK MÜZELERİNDEN ÖRNEKLER Ezgi ÖZDEMİR 2501140649 TEZ DANIŞMANI Prof. Dr. Fethiye ERBAY İSTANBUL – 2019 ÖZ KENT KİMLİĞİNİ YANSITMADA MÜZELERİN ROLÜ: SELANİK MÜZELERİNDEN ÖRNEKLER EZGİ ÖZDEMİR Müzeler sadece geçmişin birikimli olarak sergilendiği alanlar değil, aynı zamanda geçmiş ile günümüz arasında bağ kuran ve bu bağı geleceği şekillendirmek için kullanan çok yönlü kazanım alanlarıdır. Somut ve somut olmayan kültürel mirasların yer edindiği müzeler toplumun ortak belleğini de yansıtır. Müzeler birer bellek mekânı olarak kurgulandığında, mekânın belleğini de aktarmaları beklenir. Yaşadıkları alanlara kendilerine özgü özellikleri yansıtan insan topluluklarının geniş kitleler halinde barındığı kentler, çok kültürlü ve çoksesli ortamlar olarak var olmaya devam etmektedirler. Kentlerin içinde yer alan müzeler ise, çoğu zaman, ortaklaşa bir biçimde oluşturulmuş bu kültürü ve kentsel kimliği yansıtmakla yükümlü olmuşlardır. Müzenin temsil ettiği değerler, bulundukları mekânın dışında da yer almaktadır. Bu nedenle günümüz müzeleri, sadece kendilerine tanımlanmış sınırlı alanlarda varlığını sürdürmeyi değil, bu alanları esneterek daha geniş bir mekânsal anlatıyı ele almayı hedeflemektedir. Bu şekilde müzeler sadece toplumu değil, toplumun şekillendirdiği yaşam alanlarını ve bu alanların kimliğini de yansıtma görevini üstlenmiş olmaktadır. Bunun en büyük nedeni kentlerin, kent içerisinde yaşayan insan
    [Show full text]
  • Looking at the Past of Greece Through the Eyes of Greeks Maria G
    Looking at the Past of Greece through the Eyes of Greeks Maria G. Zachariou 1 Table of Contents Introduction 00 Section I: Archaeology in Greece in the 19th Century 00 Section II: Archaeology in Greece in the 20th Century 00 Section III: Archaeology in Greece in the Early 21st Century 00 Conclusion: How the Economic Crisis in Greece is Affecting Archaeology Appendix: Events, Resources, Dates, and People 00 2 Introduction The history of archaeology in Greece as it has been conducted by the Greeks themselves is too major an undertaking to be presented thoroughly within the limits of the current paper.1 Nonetheless, an effort has been made to outline the course of archaeology in Greece from the 19th century to the present day with particular attention to the native Greek contribution. The presentation of the historical facts and personalities that played a leading and vital role in the formation of the archaeological affairs in Greece is realized in three sections: archaeology in Greece during the 19th, the 20th, and the 21st centuries. Crucial historical events, remarkable people, such as politicians and scholars, institutions and societies, are introduced in chronological order, with the hope that the reader will acquire a coherent idea of the evolution of archaeology in Greece from the time of its genesis in the 19th century to the present. References to these few people and events do not suggest by any means that there were not others. The personal decisions and scientific work of native Greek archaeologists past and present has contributed significantly to the same goal: the development of archaeology in Greece.
    [Show full text]
  • The Acheron Oracle of the Dead in the Ioannina Archaeological Museum
    E. Kotjabopoulou Challenging myths in the museum 1 CHALLENGING MYTHS IN THE MUSEUM THE ACHERON ORACLE OF THE DEAD IN THE IOANNINA ARCHAEOLOGICAL MUSEUM / ΑΜΦΙΣΒΗΤΩΝΤΑΣ ΜΥΘΟΥΣ ΣΤΟ ΜΟΥΣΕΙΟ ΤΟ «ΝΕΚΡΟΜΑΝΤΕΙΟ» ΤΟΥ ΑΧΕΡΟΝΤΑ ΣΤΟ ΑΡΧΑΙΟΛΟΓΙΚΟ ΜΟΥΣΕΙΟ ΙΩΑΝΝΙΝΩΝ Eleni Kotjabopoulou / Ελένη Κοτζαμποπούλου* _________________________________________________________ ΠΕΡΙΛΗΨΗ Στο άρθρο αυτό παρουσιάζεται και συζητείται η περίπτωση εφαρμογής, στην τελευταία μόνιμη έκθεση του Αρχαιολογικού Μουσείου Ιωαννίνων (2008), ενός ανατρεπτικού μουσειολογικού μηνύματος για το πολύ γνωστό εύρημα από τη Θεσπρωτία, του λεγόμενου «Νεκρομαντείου» στον Αχέροντα. Το παράδειγμα αυτό συνιστά μέρος της ευρύτερης ιδεολογικής, επιστημολογικής και μουσειογραφικής προσέγγισης, που το ριζικά ανανεωμένο εκθεσιακό πρόγραμμα ακολούθησε στο μητροπολιτικό μουσείο της Ηπείρου. Στον πυρήνα του βρίσκεται η έμπρακτη αμφισβήτηση πλήθους αγκυλώσεων και παραμορφώσεων σχετικά με την ερμηνεία και τις χρήσεις του παρελθόντος. Στο *Eleni Kotjabopoulou (MPhil, PhD - University of Cambridge) is archaeologist at the Ephorate of Antiquities of Ioannina, Greece. [email protected] Museumedu 6 / Autumn 2018, pp. 23-80. Copyright © 2018 by Museum Education and Research Laboratory, University of Thessaly. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. Museumedu 6 / Autumn 2018 23 E. Kotjabopoulou Challenging myths in the museum επίκεντρο της μουσειακής περιοχής για το «Nεκρομαντείο» τίθεται η ανάλυση της διασύνδεσης της αρχικής ταύτισης (τέλος δεκαετίας 1950) του ελληνιστικού οικοδομήματος στη θέση Μεσοπόταμος (σε συνδυασμό με το φυσικό περιβάλλον της περιοχής) ως «Nεκρομαντείου» με την ανάγκη οικοδόμησης τότε ενός τοπικού αφηγήματος, το οποίο αναπαρήγαγε και συντονίστηκε με το κεντρικό εθνικό ιδεολόγημα της ελληνικότητας. Ιδιαίτερα συζητείται η συνεχιζόμενη ακόμη και σήμερα διστακτικότητα, τόσο από τη μεριά της ελληνικής αρχαιολογικής κοινότητας όσο και από το ευρύτερο κοινωνικό σύνολο, απέναντι στη νεότερη ερμηνεία για το εύρημα (δεκαετία 1980), σύμφωνα με την οποία αποτελεί δείγμα οχυρωμένης αγροικίας.
    [Show full text]
  • Women and Power in the Court of Philip II
    Women and power in the court of Philip II Christiana Chantavaridou SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES A thesis submitted for the degree of Master of Arts (MA) in Classical Archaeology and Ancient History of Macedonia January 2020 Thessaloniki – Greece Student Name: Christiana Chantavaridou SID: 2204170003 Supervisor: Prof. I.K. Xydopoulos I hereby declare that the work submitted is mine and that where I have made use of another’s work, I have attributed the source(s) according to the Regulations set in the Student’s Handbook. Christiana Chantavaridou January 2020 Thessaloniki - Greece 2 Abstract This dissertation was written as part of the MA in Classical Archaeology and Ancient History of Macedonia aiming to enlighten the reasons for Philip II’s marital policy and provide information in relation to royal Macedonian women in his court. Philip II was the third out of the three sons of Amyntas III of the Argead dynasty, who ruled the kingdom of Macedonia from the backwater of the Hellenic world. Prior to his reign the kingdom was weak, unstable, possessing an impotent army that could not deal with their many aggressive enemies. His ascendance to the throne, his innovations during his reign and his multiple marriages were crucial for the transformation and expansion of Macedonia. Early in his reign he took five wives, part of his marriage policy to form alliances, aiming also to produce quickly male heirs to the throne. Two more weddings followed, the last one with a Macedonian noble probably of Argive descent that took place a little time before his assassination in 336 BC.
    [Show full text]
  • Who Is Buried in Philip's Tomb?
    HIST229x “Was Alexander Great?” Who is buried in Philip’s tomb? A Thought Exercise Before we follow Alexander across the Hellespont into Asia in search of the Persian King Darius, it is important to recount what happened in Macedon just after Philip’s death. This review is important because the events which followed the shocking murder of Philip II of Macedon in the theatre of Aegae bear directly on the answer to one of the most controversial archaeological questions of the 20th century: namely, who is buried in the astonishing tomb discovered by the Greek archaeologist Manolis Andronikos in Vergina (ancient Aegae) Macedon in November of 1977?1 The variety and beauty of the finely wrought armor, the small ivory portrait heads, and the exquisite gold crowns which Andronikos found in the tomb in 1977 brought to his mind the splendid gold masks and weapons discovered by the famous German archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann in the shaft graves of Mycenae almost one hundred years before. Indeed, Andronikos’ altogether sensational finds aroused great interest both among archaeologists and the general public.2 Above all however, the two small funerary boxes made of gold (larnakes), which Andronikos discovered in the main chamber and ante-chamber of the tomb in Vergina captured the imaginations of both professional and amateur archaeologists. Each of the boxes had the characteristic radiate star of the Macedonian royal house carved on its top. Inside the smaller gold box were the bones of a young woman. The larger larnax held the bones of a man who had died when he was perhaps in his mid-forties.
    [Show full text]
  • Alexander the Great
    DISCOVERY OF PHILIP'S TOMB 0. DISCOVERY OF PHILIP'S TOMB - Story Preface 1. LEARNING FROM ARISTOTLE 2. THE YOUNG ALEXANDER 3. ALEXANDER'S HOMETOWN 4. ASSASSINATION OF PHILIP II 5. DISCOVERY OF PHILIP'S TOMB 6. ROYAL TREASURES 7. ALEXANDER'S BEQUEST 8. ALEXANDER'S EARLY CONQUESTS 9. CHASING DARIUS III 10. GAUGAMELA AND THE END OF DARIUS 11. ELEPHANTS IN WAR 12. VICTORY IN INDIA 13. GOING HOME 14. ALEXANDER'S DEATH 15. ALEXANDER'S JOURNEY IN PICTURES 16. THE REST OF THE STORY This image depicts the golden larnax (Chrysi Larnaka), with the Sun of Vergina on its lid, which allegedly contains the burial remains of King Philip II of Macedon. We also see the royal golden wreath in this image. Formerly displayed at Thessaloniki's Archaeological Museum, the items are now maintained at the underground museum at Vergina (in northern Greece). Before Pella became the royal capital, the ancient town of Aegae (Aigai) had served that purpose. Since at least 1850, scholars believed the tranquil hills of nearby Vergina contained the graves or tombs (you need Real Player for this video link) of Macedonian royalty. In 1977, the late Greek archeologist, Manolis Andronikos, working in Vergina (also spelled Verghina) discovered several tombs. Two had never been plundered. One of those (believed, at the time, to be Philip's) contained a gold casket (called a larnax) with a royal Macedonian star burst on its cover. Inside the casket were cremated remains. Although there is scholarly disagreement, Andronikos (who published a book with numerous pictures of his findings) and his colleagues believed those cremated remains were of Alexander's father, Philip II.
    [Show full text]
  • Possible Alternative Relationships of Religion, Nationalism, and Archaeology
    discussion article Yanms Hamilakis and Eleana Yaloun SaCral ISing the Cults of archaeology in modern Greece' Abstract The paper discusses the religious undertones classical Greek heritage is vested with in Greece. Drawing on the argument that nationalism and religion need to be seen as similar cultural systems, we show that classical antiquities have become powerful emotive icons for performances of national memory in the process ot imagining the topos of the Hellenic nation. This process is open to all social actors and not simply to State bureaucrats and intellectuals. We offer an explanation of this phenomenon by examining the position of antiquity in the construction of the imagined community of the Hellenic nation, as well as the ways by which Orthodoxy and classical antiquity became enmeshed in the formation of Hellenic national identity.We final- ly explore some of the implications that this phenomenon has for archaeology as a discipline and as social practice. Keywords archaeology; modern Greece; nationalism; religion Introduction Recently we have experienced the dusk of the era of political innocence in archaeology. More and more people realise that we can no longer ignore the political implications of archaeological work. We cannot underestimate archaeologists' significant contribution to the social construction of the past and its prominent role in the negotiation of identity roles and power relations in modern societies. While the literature on politics and archaeology is becoming more and more voluminous, the problematisation of the subject is still under- developed. Many archaeologists still adopt an objectifying position and a positivist approach which views the politics of archaeology and the past simply in terms of abuse of the empir- ical record and distortion of'objective' past reality.
    [Show full text]
  • Chor. 1 Ganzfass.6.5.14
    I CHOREGIA MÜNSTERSCHE GRIECHENLAND- STUDIEN HEFT 1 Annäherung an Griechenland Festschrift für Anastasios Katsanakis zum 65. Geburtstag HERAUSGEGEBEN VON HORST-DIETER BLUME UND CAY LIENAU MÜNSTER 2002 II ISBN 3-934017-01-0 Copyright 2002: Verlag C. Lienau, Zumsandestr. 36, D-48145 Münster Fax 0251-1367294, E-Mail: [email protected] Redaktion: H.-D. Blume, C. Lienau Technische Texterstellung: Birte Sprenger Printed in Germany Alle Rechte vorbehalten III Anastasios Katsanakis IV Tabula gratulatoria Kraft, Ekkehard Apostolakis, Andromegas Kingreen, Thorsten Arkudas, Konstantinos Ladas, Tassos Bachmann, Horst Lesser, Karl Otto Basioudis, Georgios und Pantazidou Leuow, Vera Bergmann, Werner und Hannelore Lienau, Cay Bertsch, Daniel und Klein, Uta Löhnert, Eckehard P. Blume, Horst-Dieter und Barbara Makris, Georgios Bretschneider, Frank Franziskus Merten, Klaus Buchholz, Ulrike Mertens, Friedrich Wilhelm Büse, Kunigunge Metzler, Dieter Chatzipanagioti-Sangmeister, Julia Miething, Dore Christodoulou, Dimitrios Moustakis, Nikola De Laer, Heidi Niermann, Hedwig Maria Deter, Ismene Pattichis, Louis Dieler, Ruth Plümpe, Horst und Sigrid Dimadis, Konstantinos A. Reddemann, Marietheres und Rein- Dimas, Stephanie hard Domes, Wolfgang und Helga Richter, Elisabeth Eideneier, Hans Roesrath, Brigitte Emrich, Gerhard Rogge, Sabine Erdtmann, Silvia Röskau, Matthias Fell, Martin und Birgitta Schäfer, Jörg Fourlas, Athanasios Alex. Scharlau, Elke Frank, Gerhard Scharlau, Winfried Freitag, Klaus Schmülling, Gesine Funke, Peter Siouli, Dina Gierse, Heinz und Sibille Spiliotis, Susanne-Sophia Gierse, Hildegard Tillkorn, Ursula Gödde, Susanne Tsouyopoulos, Nelly Hahn, Karl Vrahimis, Familie Heitmann, Heribert und Helga Vrysa, Maria Henrich, Günther S. Weidelich, Wolfram und Ulrike Hesekamp, Ewald und Ingrid Wickert, Hans-Martin Hessel, Jörg Woestmann, Heribert Hochschulz, Barbara Jacobmeyer, Wolfgang und Jutta Kahl, Thede Kallis, Ines Karduck, Konrad Katsaros, Gerassimos Kepetzis, Ekaterini Köhler, Christa Koller, Günter Aus: Blume, H.-D.
    [Show full text]
  • 8 Trends in Classics International Conference Roman Drama and Its Contexts in Memoriam Daniel Iakov (1947-2014)
    ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKI DEPARTMENT OF CLASSICS 8th Trends in Classics International Conference Roman Drama and its Contexts In Memoriam Daniel Iakov (1947-2014) 29 May - 1 June 2014 May 29, 31, and June 1: Auditorium I Aristotle University’s Research Dissemination Center (September 3rd Avenue, University Campus) http://kedea.rc.auth.gr May 30: Manolis Andronikos Hall The Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki (6, Manoli Andronikou Street) http://www.amth.gr Organizing Committee Theodore Papanghelis (Aristotle University of Thessaloniki & Academy of Athens) Richard Hunter (University of Cambridge, FBA & Aristotle University of Thessaloniki) Stephen Harrison, University of Oxford Antonios Rengakos (Aristotle University of Thessaloniki & Academy of Athens) Stavros Frangoulidis (Aristotle University of Thessaloniki) http://www.lit.auth.gr/en/8th_trends Scholarship, especially in the past, has been reading Roman drama from the perspective of its relation to Greek and Roman prototypes, and its historical context and evolution. Contemporary readings, following recent groundbreaking work based on intertextual, dramatological, performative, psychoanalytical, feminist, gender oriented approaches, philosophical analysis and aesthetics, etc., offer new valuable insights into Roman drama’s poetics and cultural impact. The conference aims at focusing on the interpretation of Roman comedy, tragedy and the fragments on the basis of such diverse approaches. By highlighting the various aesthetic, social and historical parameters, the papers
    [Show full text]
  • Dr. Alexandra Kankeleit Archäologische Aktivitäten In
    Dr. Alexandra Kankeleit Archäologische Aktivitäten in Griechenland während der deutschen Besatzungszeit, 1941-1944 Vortrag 2015 / 2016 Berlin – Frankfurt – Athen Bei dem folgenden Text handelt es sich um einen Vortrag, der 2015 und 2016 an verschiedenen Orten in Deutschland und Griechenland gehalten wurde. Für Unterstützung und Anregungen danke ich der Archäologischen Gesellschaft in Athen und dem Deutschen Archäologischen Institut, insbesondere Herrn Prof. B. Petrakos und Frau Prof. K. Sporn. Eine tiefergehende Untersuchung zum Thema ist aktuell in Vorbereitung. Inhalt Einleitung .........................................................6 1. Bedeutung der deutschen Archäologie in Griechenland ............9 1.1. Herausragende Altertumswissenschaftler in Griechenland ..........9 1.2. Das Deutsche Archäologische Institut in Athen ................... 10 1.3. Einfluss deutscher Politik und Wissenschaft auf griechische Altertumsforscher. 13 2. Strukturen und Organisation während der NS-Zeit ................ 14 2.1. Situation vor 1934 ............................................. 14 2.2. Situation nach 1934 ............................................15 2.3. Einmarsch der Wehrmacht im April 1941 ......................... 16 2.4. Aufteilung Griechenlands in drei Besatzungszonen ............... 16 2.5. Situation während der Besatzungszeit vom 27.04.1941 bis 12.10.1944 ..17 3. Mitarbeiter des DAI Athen von 1933-1944 ........................ 18 3.1. Leitung und Angestellte von 1930-1936 .......................... 18 3.2. Leitung und Angestellte von
    [Show full text]