Osborne and Langdon have each written articles on the uses of epigraphy in discerning land use in Attica. As Osborne says, the quantity of literary evidence is small and what there is is partial and gives contradictory indications (Osborne 1985 119) and therefore we must rely very heavily upon the results of archaeological investigation (Osborne 1985 119). Osborne lists various types of archaeological data, including field survey and structural remains, as well as epigraphy in his article before focusing primarily on epigraphic evidence.
Osborne examines the epigraphic evidence, particularly that of the Delian hiera sungraphe, at great length (Osborne 1985 120). There are several advantages to this data in some cases foundations have been found for the structures documented, and in others the records list structural features of the properties, such as doors, beams and pillars (Osborne 1985 120). Osborne remains critical, however, of making an interpretation based on these features and says, The terms used seem to have become conventional, if not quite technical and makes the example that doorless room with oven seems to be used to describe what was in fact the potters kiln (Osborne 1985 120).
Firm definitions of the words are necessary for creating an accurate picture of the kind and extent of residence on the estate which the presence of these structures implies (Osborne 1985121). In his response to Osbornes writing, Langdon also mentions the importance of terms in understanding the epigraphic evidence, but suggests that Osborne has misinterpreted the farm in Ancient Greek and dismisses as simply a general term for land, when Langdon argues, based on literary sources, that commonly meant farm (Langdon 1991 209). It is obvious through this argument, as well as Osbornes own, that different interpretations of the available data are possible, considering the lack of solid definitions for most of the terms involved. Unlike Osborne, Langdon relies quite heavily on literary sources at the beginning of his article, and touches briefly on the epigraphic and archaeological sources in the latter part.
Langdon is quite critical not only of the epigraphic data itself, but also of Osbornes treatment and interpretation of it. Both articles rely heavily on one form of evidence Osbornes on the epigraphic and Langdons on the literary and both fail to provide a complete picture of all of the available evidence on the subject of land use in Attica.
Osborne examines the epigraphic evidence, particularly that of the Delian hiera sungraphe, at great length (Osborne 1985 120). There are several advantages to this data in some cases foundations have been found for the structures documented, and in others the records list structural features of the properties, such as doors, beams and pillars (Osborne 1985 120). Osborne remains critical, however, of making an interpretation based on these features and says, The terms used seem to have become conventional, if not quite technical and makes the example that doorless room with oven seems to be used to describe what was in fact the potters kiln (Osborne 1985 120).
Firm definitions of the words are necessary for creating an accurate picture of the kind and extent of residence on the estate which the presence of these structures implies (Osborne 1985121). In his response to Osbornes writing, Langdon also mentions the importance of terms in understanding the epigraphic evidence, but suggests that Osborne has misinterpreted the farm in Ancient Greek and dismisses as simply a general term for land, when Langdon argues, based on literary sources, that commonly meant farm (Langdon 1991 209). It is obvious through this argument, as well as Osbornes own, that different interpretations of the available data are possible, considering the lack of solid definitions for most of the terms involved. Unlike Osborne, Langdon relies quite heavily on literary sources at the beginning of his article, and touches briefly on the epigraphic and archaeological sources in the latter part.
Langdon is quite critical not only of the epigraphic data itself, but also of Osbornes treatment and interpretation of it. Both articles rely heavily on one form of evidence Osbornes on the epigraphic and Langdons on the literary and both fail to provide a complete picture of all of the available evidence on the subject of land use in Attica.
No comments:
Post a Comment