No description available.

Neanderthals in Western Europe are associated with a plethora of stone tool assemblages and their internal variation has been linked to different causal factors and behavioural interpretations. This thesis presents a new contribution to the study of Middle Palaeolithic variability by focusing specifically on the Late Middle Palaeolithic period (MIS Sd-3) and the typo-technological, spatial and temporal differences amongst bifacially worked tools. Currently, in Western Europe distinct types of Late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tools are associated with two macro-regional entities, the Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition (MTA) and the Keilmessergruppe (KMG). These two entities, centred in Southwestern France and Germany, also link to two different research traditions which use a variety of competing terms, typologies and definitions. This study uses a new classificatory approach to overcome these epistemological issues and facilitates for the first time wider-scale comparisons, incorporating the regions located in between the MTA and KMG core areas. Bifacial tools from 14 key assemblages were analysed through an extensive attribute analysis, creating a database with primary data for 1,303 bifacial tools. This data was then incorporated with other published site information allowing for a detailed assessment of both the typo-technological characteristics of the bifacial tools and their variability. Firstly, the results indicate that genuine differences exist among Late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tool assemblages regardless of the classificatory framework. Secondly, exploration of the data using three different scales of analysis allowed for the recognition of different variation patterns and interpretations. At a micro-scale, it is clear that a large amount of typo-technological variability exists among Late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial tools, which can mainly be attributed to differences in local conditions, such as raw material and function. At a macro-scale the MTA/KMG dichotomy was confirmed by a distinct divide between classic handaxes and backed bifacial tools west and east of the Rhine. Additionally, a third entity, the Mousterian with bifacial tools (MBT), is located in between the MTA and KMG core areas and contains a wide variety of bifacial tools, including MTA and KMG types. At a meso-scale, several previously identified regional entities were merged into the MTA and MBT, but specific spatio-temporal units do exist, e.g. bout coupe handaxes in MIS3 Britain. At both this meso- and macro-scale the observed patterns cannot be explained merely by referring to differences in local settings, but require an additional sphere of interpretation, argued here to be culture. The MTA and KMG can be seen as two distinct cultural traditions, reflecting different lines of learned behavior, as expressed by different ways of making bifacial tools. The sporadic spread of KMG elements across Western Europe is indicative of Neanderthal population dynamics and the MBT is interpreted as the results of MTA-KMG interactions in an overlap zone where foreign influences were more easily absorbed. Finally, the distinct presence and absence of certain bifacial tool types in specific regions allow to argue for the presence of a collective cultural capacity among Neanderthals.

The PhD study focuses on long-term settlement histories in the late prehistory of South East Bulgaria, based upon three contrasting microregions. Two of them have been destroyed by intensive coal mining, which has necessitated the application of GIS as a rescue tool to reconstruct the landscape. The third, undestroyed microregion was included in the study to enable the comparison of settlement patterns in three neighbouring valleys. The main research aims are the social and economic aspects of the human/landscape interrelation, as well as the patterns of change and continuity from the initial occupation at the beginning of the Neolithic until the end of the Late Bronze Age. Along with the GIS technique, which proved to be a relevant analytical tool, a set of modern interpretative modes in archaeology was applied to achieve the research targets. The general and specific approaches in the study are prompted by the state of the primary data, which but rarely allows precise contextual analysis.As a result of the introduction of the concepts of landscape archaeology and social practices in the studies of Bulgarian late prehistory, it was possible to establish crucial links between the identity of people, places and objects. The identification of a suite of social practices has integrated the Bulgarian evidence in a broader context of human development and has contributed to the radical re-interpretation of most of the current explanations of the evidence at the study area. The reconstruction of past landscapes in the three microregions, together with the newly reconciled concepts of landscape and environment, have facilitated the reconstruction of past settlement patterns, resource potential and inter-site transport networks. Through the evaluation and re-interpretation of site evidence for all settlements and burials, it was possible to make a comparative interpretation of diachronic changes in settlement, society, material culture and landscapes.

The present study analyses Roman-native interaction from a landscape perspective in a core territory of both Iron Age and Roman Dacia. The study are includes the royal Dacian heartland (the Orastie Mountains) and its surrounding lowlands, and also the hinterlands of Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa and Apulum, the two most important Roman towns in the province. The research considers the nature and distribution of lower-order settlements in the pre-Roman and Roman periods, human impact on the local landscape and the changes which occurred as a result of the Roman occupation. Also, it addresses previous biases of interpretation through re-evaluation of earlier data and consideration of new datasets provided by the interpretation and mapping of recent oblique aerial photographs. New detailed plans of the sites discovered through aerial photography have been integrated within a significant amount of scattered published data (excavation and field walking reports; gazetteers) and relevant information from historical maps. Al the material has been analysed utilising a relational database linked to a GIS. The results provide a complex reconsideration on a more realistic and up-to-date basis of previous theories regarding the native settlement pattern and the impact of Roman colonisation in the chronological and geographical context specified. Also, through the resulting database and GIS, it provides a methodological framework and a customised tool for further analysis of the landscape and of the evolution of the settlement pattern which can be extended throughout the province of Dacia and into the neighbouring areas. Finally, it creates a useful source of analogy or contrast for Empire-wide studies of Romanisation and Roman-native interaction.

As the title suggests, <i>Byzantios</i> or <i>About the Imperial Megalopolis</i> is the eulogy of Constantinople, one of Theodore Metochites' many works that still remain unpublished due to the writer's obscure style. My primary aim in this edition has been to establish the text, an oration written by one of the most prominent figures of the Palaeologan Renaissance. In fact, the text constitutes the eulogy of the Capital of the Byzantine Empire and it could provide useful information to historians, archaeologists and Various scholars. However, I must ask for the reader's understanding regarding the matters of punctuation. The artificial style and rhetorical presentation in many passages make no wonder if a satisfactory rendering of the Greek can be achieved. I have added an Introduction where I deal with Metochites' life and works, the genre of <i>Byzantios</i> and a few more issues raised by the oration (missing folios, dating of the oration, etc.). The text needs to be elucidated from a wide Variety of sources, historical and literary, and this is the main aim of the commentary. In addition. I wished to present reasons for my interventions in the Greek text, to offer some parallels from other - mainly rhetorical - works and to give the quotations of the classical authors to which Metochites refers. Obviously the commentary does not provide exhaustive discussion of the many different topics raised in <i>Byzantios</i>, but I hope to have provided a minimum bibliography for further study. The appendix at the end shows how much Metochites followed Menander's precepts. I believe that the indexes will also prove useful to the reader.