Search

Copyright of Natural Resources & Technology is the property of Goce Delcev University, Natural Resources & Technology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Alexander's famous ban of the exposure of the corpses in Bactra has been long studied. Mostly the discussion has focused on the veracity of the account and his compliance with the Zoroastrian rites. The analysis of the reasons that led Alexander to the ban has hitherto been very superficial, only outlining the apparently exceptional character of that action. This paper tries to put this prohibition into a broader context. For this purpose, a look at the previous actions of Alexander in relation to the foreigners' corpses must first be taken. Also, the extremely negative conception of the unburied in the Hellenic culture, religion, and politics needs to be properly assessed. Only after this analysis, the signification of the prohibition can be rightly apprehended and integrated into the wider context of Alexander's conquest, and not regarding it as a mere king's whim. This Bactrian episode stands for a good example of how the Macedonian campaign put face to face conflicting religious practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The presence and pre-eminence of settlers from the Northern Aegean world in early Hellenistic Bactria-Sogdiana have been tacitly accepted by scholars since Robert’s paper in 1968. The present article challenges the idea which backs up this assumption and also provides some new evidence with a greater focus on the Thracian and Thessalian cases. In this paper, it will be assessed that the hitherto accepted proofs are mostly circumstantial and not compelling. However, the dismissal of these pieces of evidence does not imply the total rebuttal of the possible presence of settlers from Thrace and Thessaly, but a reassessment of their importance and the times and circumstances of their arrival, proposing different migratory waves and purposes behind these populational movements. In consequence, this reassessment also implies new insight about how they would have been integrated into the complex multicultural mosaic of Bactria-Sogdiana.

While the only surviving legends of Cyrus the great are found in the GraecoRoman sources, they ultimately speak to various viewpoints in Achaemenid Iran on Cyrus. Following a survey of historical conditions surrounding the rise of the Persian Empire by Cyrus and its consolidation under Darius, characteristics of western Iranian historiography concerning the Median “state” and the dawn of the Persian Empire during the Achaemenid period are explored. It is argued that the Median and Iranian orientation of the Achaemenid Empire from the time of Darius provides the possibility of infusion of Young Avestan myths and legends in western Iran. In particular, the parallels between stories of Cyrus the great and Kauui Haosrauuah (Kay Ḵosrow) are investigated that point to a process of assimilation of the former with the latter that probably started in the Achaemenid period and later led to a two-way interaction of legends about these two figures. In addition, the depiction of Alexander in the Iranian tradition and his association with Kay Ḵosrow, analogous to his association with Cyrus the great in the western sources are pointed out that may further show the assimilation of Cyrus the great with the Iranian tradition by being identified with Kay Ḵosrow. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Alexander’s famous ban of the exposure of the corpses in Bactra has been long studied. Mostly the discussion has focused on the veracity of the account and his compliance with the Zoroastrian rites. The analysis of the reasons that led Alexander to the ban has hitherto been very superficial, only outlining the apparently exceptional character of that action. This paper tries to put this prohibition into a broader context. For this purpose, a look at the previous actions of Alexander in relation to the foreigners’ corpses must first be taken. Also, the extremely negative conception of the unburied in the Hellenic culture, religion, and politics needs to be properly assessed. Only after this analysis, the signification of the prohibition can be rightly apprehended and integrated into the wider context of Alexander’s conquest, and not regarding it as a mere king’s whim. This Bactrian episode stands for a good example of how the Macedonian campaign put face to face conflicting religious practices.

The paper aims to evaluate the incidence of the name Alexander among the oldest families of the Russian nobility during the 14th — early 20th centuries. One of the key questions is whether the tradition of this name’s popularity in the ruling dynasties in Russia was related to the historical memory of Alexander Nevsky, his canonization and the prominence of his figure in the first quarter of the 18th century. The study is based on the corpus of genealogies of the Russian aristocracy and ancient noble families that allows the author to track the naming trends over several centuries. With reference to the name Alexander, the following patterns were revealed: it was established that the personality of Alexander Nevsky influenced the popularity of his name among the princely dynasties of Russia, including those distantly related to the prince himself. In the Muscovite dynasty, the name disappeared, while in separate branches of the Rurik dynasty, it was preserved thanks to the historical memory of its other bearers. In the 15th –16th centuries, the name Alexander was relatively popular among the elite but the all-Russian canonization of Alexander Nevsky in the 1540s had no significant impact on it. In the early 17th century, the name is barely mentioned in the genealogies, but since the last quarter of the century it regains its former popularity. It is booming all through the first half of the 18th century which only partially correlates with the relevance of the image of Alexander Nevsky during Peter the Great’s rule. By that time, this name had become a trend among Russian nobility, and there was nothing extraordinary about the future emperor getting the name Alexander Pavlovich. Another peak in the popularity of the name occurred in the late 18th — early 19th century, which is largely due to the success of the reign of Alexander I. During the 19th century, the name became one of the most common among the Russian nobility.

This paper tends to explain how and why Arrian condemns some of Alexander’s transgressions before approving them in the final description of the conqueror. At first, the historian depicts a traditional concept of transgression, which links the crossing of geographical boundaries to the adoption of barbarian habits and hubris. But afterwards he highlights the differences between these transgressions by making it possible to get back into a reasonable behaviour and by differentiating true transgression from apparent transgression. Thus, he establishes different kinds of violations. This analysis enables him to overcome the traditional opposition between transgression and the established order: geographic barriers can finally be crossed in order to preserve justice, and paradoxically, the ostentatious violation of Greek habits and the apparent arrogance can help the ruler fight against disorder.

There are numerous historical reconstructions of the lead-up to the Battle of Gaugamela, albeit often as a short prelude to the battle itself. The focus tends to be historical reality, with the extant sources blended to produce a probable sequence of events. Such narratives have their place, but the process masks the details provided by specific sources. This article analyses Arrian's representation of events to understand his narrative better. Particular attention is paid to his chronological 'mistake', specifically the loss of a day which is usually just corrected by commentators. I suggest that this was not an error at all, but a deliberate construct. I show that Arrian manipulates 'narrative time' by using the night in order to blur historical time, and how this creates a framework within which Arrian carefully constructs his Alexander–Parmenio exchanges. The construct of the adviser, the use of night imagery, and the select use of terminology (kleptein) are utilized by Arrian in order to maintain his heroic image of Alexander and to conceal any strategies of deception. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The meetings with Indian gymnosophists (γυμνοσοφισταί) or ‘naked philosophers’ are one of the most popular motifs from the stories of Alexander the Great. The accounts of these meetings are preserved in Strabo, Plutarch, Arrian, Diogenes Laertius, and some later sources. These descriptions have been repeatedly analysed by previous scholars. However, most researchers focused on the problems of cultural differences and overlooked the issue of intercultural relations. They have often considered these descriptions in a dichotomous perspective. Therefore, the aim of this study is reconsideration of these accounts in the broader context of relations between the Greeks and the Indians with particular emphasis on the following issues: the communication problems, which occurred between the Greeks and the Indians, the relation between the asceticism in India and the Cynic philosophy in Greece, the relation between the Buddhist and early Indian sceptical thought and Greek philosophy. Because the study of these problems can lead to a biased search for influences, way of looking at them proposed in this paper is the so-called middle ground.

As teachers, directors and coaches we move between conscious and unconscious use of language with different levels of awareness of its impact. Ideas and images are transformed into movement through a process of 'ideokinesis', where how you think your body works changes how your body works. This mattering discourse can become naturalised within different movement practices and, as such, its political resonance and liberatory potential is side-lined. This article seeks to understand how language matters in movement teaching. What types of language are produced in the movement space and why? How does pedagogic language open up or close down the possibility of a liberatory practice and how might we define this? At this cultural moment, when the complexities of identity politics have been brought into sharp focus, it seems vital to hold our pedagogic language to account. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]