Volume 1 Issue 2
1. M. Aguirre, “Deukalion and Pyrrha: Re-reading the Greek Flood myth”, (2013) Vol. 1 Iss. 2, pp. 1-12
In recent years the most common way to interpret the Greek myth of the Flood has been through a comparative approach in the context of the relationship between Greek and Near Eastern cultures and the influences of the Near East on Greek traditions, literature, religion and myth. My article does not intend to re-examine the conclusions of this research, but, without diminishing the obvious importance of the comparative approach, to focus on the most ‘canonical’ Greek version of the myth and to highlight some aspects of it which in my view have not been so deeply explored.
2. N. Panagiotakis, M. Panagiotaki, A. Sarris,”The Earliest Communication System in the Aegean” (2013) Vol. 1, Iss 2, pp. 13-27
A communication system based on fire signals was identified in Crete by the field archaeologist Nikos Panagiotakis, during an archaeological survey he conducted in the Pediada region in central Crete (from 1982 to 1989), covering more than 800 sq. km. The Pediada lies between the Bronze Age palatial sites of Knossos and Malia (from west to east) and extends south and southeast of modern Heraklion. The communication system was used during the Minoan period, especially between 1900-1700 BC. It worked by means of codified fire signals sent from the top of large, man-made constructions (in the shape of a truncated cone), built on the tops of hills or ridges. The network with its interconnecting visual contact could keep a close watch over, and so control natural passes and routes, covering the whole countryside and the coasts.
3. Ι. Deraj, “Xenophon’s Representation of Socratic διαλέγεσθαι” (2013) Vol. 1, Iss. 2, pp.28-38
This paper deals with the problem of Xenophon’s representation of Socratic διαλέγεσθαι (dialogic conversation). The author analyzes selected examples of its use by Xenophon in his adaptation of the Socratic ethics in Memorabilia and compares it with Plato’s use of διαλέγεσθαι in his early dialogues. The main hypothesis of this paper is that the Socratic use of διαλέγεσθαι should not be identified with Socrates’ use of elenchus (ἔλεγχος). The author suggests an implication of this hypothesis is that the question-answer turn-taking form of διαλέγεσθαι is not its essential feature. He attempts to demonstrate that what constitutes the essence of both Socrates’ use of διαλέγεσθαι in Xenophon’s Memorabilia 4 and of Odysseus’ use of persuasive speech in Antisthenes’ Odysseus or on Odysseus is the purpose of examining and transforming one’s individual ethos (ἦθος).
4. Review: T. Samuels, “Denise Eileen McCoskey, Race: Antiquity and its Legacy” (2013) Vol. 1, Iss. 2, pp.39-43
Denise Eileen McCoskey, Race: Antiquity and its Legacy. London and New York, I.B. Tauris, 2012. $24.95. Pp. x & 250. Paperback. ISBN 9780195381887