Two Notes on Athenian Topography

1955 ◽  
Vol 75 ◽  
pp. 117-121 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. E. Wycherley
Keyword(s):  

In Pollux, VIII. 20 (ed. Bethe, Leipzig, 1900–37) in the section on σκεύη δικαστικά—κιγκλίς, δρύφακτος κτλ.—we read περισχοινίσαντας (περισκηνήσαντας A) δέ τι τῆς ἀγορᾶς μέρος ἔδει φέρειν εἰς τὸν περιορισθέντα τόπον Ἀθηναίων τὸν βουλόμενον ὄστρακον ἐγγεγραμμένον τοὔνομα τοῦ μέλλοντος ἐξοστρακίƷεσθαι. Dindorf described περισκηνήσαντας, ‘quod hactenus vulgatum est’, as ‘ineptissimum’, and it has been given short shrift. Bearing in mind that good authorities speak of a more solid and substantial barrier than a σχοῖνος on occasions of ostracism, he suggested that περισχοινίƷειν could mean simply ‘circumsepire, cingere, circumdare septo, vel cancellis’. But surely the σχοῖνος element of the word is inescapable; περισχοινίƷειν means ‘;place a rope around’; and if he used this word Pollux is in conflict with other writers, notably Philochorus, and is probably wrong. Carcopino, who quotes περισχοινίσαντας without question, thinks that Pollux has simply made a mistake, misled by recollection of the σχοινίον μεμιλτωμένον with which stragglers were shepherded into the assembly. But there would be little risk of confusion with the red rope; the error is due rather to recollection of the roped enclosures mentioned below.


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.



2009 ◽  
Vol 361 (19) ◽  
pp. 1913-1914
Author(s):  
Daniel S. Budnitz ◽  
Linda L. Lewis ◽  
Nadine Shehab ◽  
Debra Birnkrant


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. 4609
Author(s):  
Ryo Sasaki ◽  
Kayoko Yamamoto

In tourist areas, it is necessary to prepare a method that supports tourists’ activities by providing information concerning disaster support facilities during normal times, in addition to sightseeing spots and tourism-related facilities, because there is a risk of confusion during disasters, as tourists are not aware of the locations of disaster support facilities. The present study aims to develop a navigation system that supports the activities of users during both normal times and disasters by integrating augmented reality (AR) and web geographic information systems (Web-GISs), as well as by using pictograms. The system can not only effectively provide users with information concerning sightseeing spots and tourism-related facilities but also information concerning disaster support facilities. The system was operated over a period of 6 weeks in Chofu City, Tokyo Metropolis, Japan. Based on the results of a questionnaire survey for 60 users, the system was highly evaluated for its originality in terms of displays and functions using pictograms, navigation using AR, and obtaining information during disasters. Additionally, based on the results of access log analysis, the system was continuously utilized by users during the operation period. Therefore, by continuously operating the system, it can be expected that users will further utilize each function of the system.



1993 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 25-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda A O'Brien ◽  
Jeane Ann Grisso ◽  
Greg Maislin ◽  
Grace Y Chiu ◽  
Lois Evans


Author(s):  
Divya C. Chandra ◽  
Michelle Yeh ◽  
Colleen Donovan

Many electronic displays of aeronautical charting information currently use different symbols for common display elements, creating the risk of confusion and misinterpretation. The SAE International Aerospace Behavior and Technology (G-10) Aeronautical Charting Committee, an industry group of subject matter experts, is developing an updated recommendations document that would provide guidance on what symbols to use on these displays. This paper describes a study conducted to evaluate some of the symbology proposed by the committee. Instrument-rated pilots were asked to identify proposed electronic symbols, and to rate their confidence in their response. The goal of this task was to determine whether pilots could correctly identify the proposed symbols, even though they may not be familiar with some of the specific symbols. Most of the symbols were well recognized, but a few were problematic.



2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Morteza H. Bagheri ◽  
Iman Khalaji ◽  
Arad Azizi ◽  
Rebecca T. Loibl ◽  
Scott Manzo ◽  
...  

There is paucity of data on the performance of different improvised materials to cope with the COVID-19 pandemic. The goal of this study is to evaluate the filtration efficiency and breathability of improvised filtration and commonly available mask materials, as well as to assess their reusability. Materials readily available to the general public such as cotton, fragrance and additive-free dry baby cleaning wipes, and those abundantly available in the hospital setting, such as sterilization wraps, were chosen for testing, amongst others. In the COVID-important 2–5 m particle range, two-layers of cotton provided filtration efficiency between 34%–66%. Amongst potential filter materials, 300-weight sterilization wraps provided approximately 80% filtration efficiency and are readily available in the healthcare setting. The addition of sterilization wrap to cotton fabrics brought the filtration efficiency to above that of the sterilization wrap (80%-90%) at the expense of added pressure drop. Four-layers of dry baby wipes performed very well with a filtration efficiency of 85% and a reasonable pressure drop (1/3 of procedure mask). Since the material is advertised as pure spunlace polypropylene and designed to contact the skin during cleaning, it would appear generally safe as a filter insert. Of improvised filters, polypropylene electrostatic HVAC filters performed the best with filtration efficiencies of >99%, but are not recommended due to the risk of confusion with glass-based HVAC filters and uncertainty regarding trace materials used in the filter. The filtration efficiency of two-layers of cotton fabrics with one-layer of sterilization wrap slightly improved over 10 laundry cycles, while the performance of other non-wovens, like dry baby wipes, degraded more rapidly and should be considered disposable. In summary, we found that a two-layer cotton fabric can provide a comfortable, breathable and reusable option. The addition of a sterilization wrap or four-layers of pure spunlace fragrance free dry baby wipes can significantly improve filtration and block expiratory aerosols at the expense of an added pressure drop.



2015 ◽  
Vol 1 (S1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerald Wendelin ◽  
Sabine Löffler ◽  
Elisabeth Thierrichter ◽  
Astrid Sonnleitner ◽  
Wolfgang Schwinger


2013 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 140-145 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Blume
Keyword(s):  


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document