Island Gems Aftermath

1968 ◽  
Vol 88 ◽  
pp. 1-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Boardman

This article is intended not only to record additions and corrections to Island Gems (published by the Hellenic Society in 1963 as its tenth Supplementary Volume; here abbreviated IGems), but also to discuss a class of engraved stones which was not properly distinguished in that book. The main series of Island Gems belongs to the seventh and early sixth centuries B.C. Most of the stones and a few of their devices copy Bronze Age forms, and the material is generally a distinctive, often translucent, green serpentine (‘steatite’). This series ends in the first half of the sixth century, but it was possible to identify, by their material and technique, some later gems from Island workshops which correspond in style and shape with the contemporary Greek scarabs in harder materials. The comparatively soft material had meant that the intaglio devices on Island gems could be cut without recourse to the drill or cutting wheel, and this technique was retained for the later scarabs. It is evident, however, that for a while already in the sixth century Island artists had experimented with the harder materials then being employed for engraved seals in Greece; and with some shapes which seem to compromise between the old and the new. These stones seem to belong to the middle and second half of the sixth century. A list follows:(i) Oxford 1925.129. plate I. Green steatite tapered scaraboid with convex face. L. 20 (mm.). A lion. IGems no. 349, fig. 6, pl. 13.(ii) Athens, from Sunium. plate I. Green steatite. Shape as the last. L. 20. Contorted bull-headed man. IGems no. 350, pl. 13.(iii) Paris, Bibl. Nat., ex Louvre C 8514. Rock crystal plump lentoid. W. 18. Summary representation of a winged horse.(iv) Boston 27.678 (once Bruschi, Warren), plate I. Chalcedony lentoid with domed back and shallow convex face. W. 21. Facing head of a satyr with fillet ends behind the ears and an arrow marking at the centre of the forehead.

Author(s):  
Eric Gubel

Rooted in Late Bronze Age Levantine traditions, Phoenician art emerges in the early first millennium bce, spiced with new elements adopted and adapted from contemporary Egyptian models, while also permeable to influence from artistic trends popular with neighboring cultures and overseas recipients of Phoenician luxurious exports. During its acme between the late ninth and early seventh centuries bce, the art shared a common repertoire of motifs among sculptors, metalsmiths, ivory carvers, and seal cutters in a predominantly Egyptianizing style. Mass-produced terracotta plaques, figurines, and the minor arts displayed a more diversified array of autochthonous characteristics. In line with the evolution of sculpture, the Cypriot component was definitely replaced by Greek idioms from the later sixth century bce onward. If Punic art cannot possibly be defined as a mere perpetuation of the Phoenician production, and was impacted by more complex patterns of cultural interaction (e.g. North Africa, Iberia), the latter’s heritage is undeniable in many artistic media.


1972 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 269-275 ◽  
Author(s):  
John M. Coles

SummaryThe evidence of human activity in the Somerset Levels in the first millennium B.C. consists of wooden trackways laid across areas of developing raised bog, and joining small settlements on the higher, drier lands of the Poldens and the Wedmore ridge. The excavation of one of these tracks, of the sixth century B.C., is described. Stray finds of weapons and tools continue to be made by peat-cutters and by archaeologists; the most recent of these finds are a hazelwood peg or truncheon, and a sycamore tent peg, of the fourth or third century B.C. The relationship of the trackways and other finds to the marshside villages at Meare remains to be established.


Author(s):  
Steven Mithen

The ancient civilizations were dependent upon sophisticated systems of water management. The hydraulic engineering works found in ancient Angkor (ninth to thirteenth century AD), the Aztec city of Tenochtitlan (thirteenth to fifteenth century AD), Byzantine Constantinople (fourth to sixth century AD) and Nabatean Petra (sixth century BC to AD 106) are particularly striking because each of these is in localities of the world that are once again facing a water crisis. Without water management, such ancient cities would never have emerged, nor would the urban communities and towns from which they developed. Indeed, the ‘domestication’ of water marked a key turning point in the cultural trajectory of each region of the world where state societies developed. This is illustrated by examining the prehistory of water management in the Jordan Valley, identifying the later Neolithic (approx. 8300–6500 years ago) as a key period when significant investment in water management occurred, laying the foundation for the development of the first urban communities of the Early Bronze Age.


Author(s):  
Bahata Ansumali Mukhopadhyay

AbstractEver since the discovery of Indus valley civilization, scholars have debated the linguistic identities of its people. This study analyzes numerous archaeological, linguistic, archaeogenetic and historical evidences to claim that the words used for elephant (like, ‘pīri’, ‘pīru’) in Bronze Age Mesopotamia, the elephant-word used in the Hurrian part of an Amarna letter of ca. 1400 BC, and the ivory-word (‘pîruš’) recorded in certain sixth century BC Old Persian documents, were all originally borrowed from ‘pīlu’, a Proto-Dravidian elephant-word, which was prevalent in the Indus valley civilization, and was etymologically related to the Proto-Dravidian tooth-word ‘*pal’ and its alternate forms (‘*pīl’/‘*piḷ’/‘*pel’). This paper argues that there is sufficient morphophonemic evidence of an ancient Dravidian ‘*piḷ’/‘*pīl’-based root, which meant ‘splitting/crushing’, and was semantically related to the meanings ‘tooth/tusk’. This paper further observes that ‘pīlu’ is among the most ancient and common phytonyms of the toothbrush tree Salvadora persica, which is a characteristic flora of Indus valley, and whose roots and twigs have been widely used as toothbrush in IVC regions since antiquity. This study claims that this phytonym ‘pīlu’ had also originated from the same Proto-Dravidian tooth-word, and argues that since IVC people had named their toothbrush trees and tuskers (elephants) using a Proto-Dravidian tooth-word, and since these names were widely used across IVC regions, a significant population of Indus valley civilization must have used that Proto-Dravidian tooth-word in their daily communication. Since ‘tooth’ belongs to the core non-borrowable ultraconserved vocabulary of a speech community, its corollary is that a significant population of IVC spoke certain ancestral Dravidian languages. Important insights from recent archaeogenetic studies regarding possible migration of Proto-Dravidian speakers from Indus valley to South India also corroborate the findings of this paper.


2015 ◽  
Vol 65 ◽  
pp. 1-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geoffrey Ludvik ◽  
J. Mark Kenoyer ◽  
Magda Pieniążek ◽  
William Aylward

AbstractStone beads from the site of Troy, Turkey, have been studied in order to understand better the nature of lapidary technology and trade during the third to second millennium BC in this part of Anatolia. Eighteen carnelian and two rock crystal beads were documented through visual examinations, measurement and photography to identify the raw material, as well as general aspects of manufacture and style. Silicone impressions of the drill holes as well as some of the engraved surfaces were made in order to study the nature of drilling and abrasion under a Scanning Electron Microscope. Through these studies, it is possible to identify the presence of different types of bead production and drilling technology during each major chronological period at the site. Some of the beads may have been produced at Troy or at nearby sites in Anatolia while others have links to the southern Aegean and eastern Mediterranean regions as well as the more distant regions of Mesopotamia and the Indus Valley.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document