Images

Images for 2008–2009 project grant reports
Fig. 2: Detail of the paintings in the Bema (Kakoulli and Fischer 2008–2009)

Fig. 2: Detail of the paintings in the Bema (Kakoulli and Fischer 2008–2009)

Fig. 2: Detail of the paintings in the Bema dated to the 1183 painting phase and characterized by the “rococo” style developed in Constantinople.

Fig. 2: Detail of the paintings in the Bema (Kakoulli and Fischer 2008–2009) - Read More…

Fig. 1: Combined areas of study of the Survey of Thisve-Kastorion (Dunn 2008–2009)

Fig. 1: Combined areas of study of the Survey of Thisve-Kastorion (Dunn 2008–2009)

Fig. 1: Combined areas of study of the Survey of Thisve-Kastorion and its loci of maritime traffic (The British School of Archaeology and the 23rd Ephoreia of Byzantine Antiquities), the Thisve Basin Survey (The American School of Classical Studies at Athens), and the Corinthian Gulf Islands Project (The American School of Classical Studies at Athens).

Fig. 1: Combined areas of study of the Survey of Thisve-Kastorion (Dunn 2008–2009) - Read More…

Fig. 2: Western Boeotia (Dunn 2008–2009)

Fig. 2: Western Boeotia (Dunn 2008–2009)

Fig. 2: Western Boeotia. Reported late Roman fortifications and loci of maritime traffic (top). Reported Byzantine and Frankish fortifications and loci of maritime traffic (bottom).

Fig. 2: Western Boeotia (Dunn 2008–2009) - Read More…

Fig. 5: Thisve/Kastorion, the Lower Acropolis (Dunn 2008–2009)

Fig. 5: Thisve/Kastorion, the Lower Acropolis (Dunn 2008–2009)

Fig. 5: Thisve/Kastorion, the Lower Acropolis: Ancient, Byzantine, Frankish, and post-Byzantine features.

Fig. 5: Thisve/Kastorion, the Lower Acropolis (Dunn 2008–2009) - Read More…

Fig. 1: Kiln furniture (Waksman 2008–2009)

Fig. 1: Kiln furniture (Waksman 2008–2009)

Fig. 1: Kiln furniture. Tripods and other stands used to separate glazed pottery in kilns.

Fig. 1: Kiln furniture (Waksman 2008–2009) - Read More…

Fig. 2: Biscuit-fired wasters (Waksman 2008–2009)

Fig. 2: Biscuit-fired wasters (Waksman 2008–2009)

Fig. 2: Biscuit-fired wasters. These wasters, coming from the same archaeological context, illustrate the variety of motives in the production of Sirkeci. It includes ceramics decorated with monograms (top row, 2nd from the right), with birds (top row, 1st from the right) and Elaborated Incised Ware (top row, 1st from the left).

Fig. 2: Biscuit-fired wasters (Waksman 2008–2009) - Read More…

Fig. 1: Semi-subterranean temple at eastern end of municipal lot looking to north (Bray and Echeverría 2008–2009)

Fig. 1: Semi-subterranean temple at eastern end of municipal lot looking to north (Bray and Echeverría 2008–2009)

Fig. 1: Semi-subterranean temple comprising central feature of religious-ceremonial precinct of Inca-Caranqui at eastern end of municipal lot looking to north. Note the two separate flooring episodes in evidence, the baffled, step-down entryways in NE and NW corners of temple (mirroring the SE and SW corners), and the covered exit canal located at center-east side of floor (right side of photo). The large void at the north end of floor was found as is in the 2006 excavations and may represent a Colonial period removal event.

Fig. 1: Semi-subterranean temple at eastern end of municipal lot looking to north (Bray and Echeverría 2008–2009) - Read More…

Fig. 2: Composite LiDAR scan of semi-subterranean temple looking south (Bray and Echeverría 2008–2009)

Fig. 2: Composite LiDAR scan of semi-subterranean temple looking south (Bray and Echeverría 2008–2009)

Fig. 2: Composite LiDAR scan of semi-subterranean temple looking south. Note definition of fitted stones in upper and lower floors, the long canal on upper left side (SE corner of temple), the baffled steps in SE and SW corners, and the east-west oriented, covered canal segment exiting center-east side of floor.

Fig. 2: Composite LiDAR scan of semi-subterranean temple looking south (Bray and Echeverría 2008–2009) - Read More…

Fig. 3: GPR image of subsurface anomalies to north and west of semi-subterranean temple (Bray and Echeverría 2008–2009)

Fig. 3: GPR image of subsurface anomalies to north and west of semi-subterranean temple (Bray and Echeverría 2008–2009)

Fig. 3: GPR image of subsurface anomalies to north and west of semi-subterranean temple. The areas outlined in white indicate well-defined, sub-surface features (north is to right in image).

Fig. 3: GPR image of subsurface anomalies to north and west of semi-subterranean temple (Bray and Echeverría 2008–2009) - Read More…

Fig. 4: Fig. 4: The eastern, north–south trending Inca wall (Bray and Echeverría 2008–2009)

Fig. 4: Fig. 4: The eastern, north–south trending Inca wall (Bray and Echeverría 2008–2009)

Fig. 4: The eastern, north–south trending Inca wall (Fea 1) on north side of semi-subterranean temple exposed during test excavations in 2008 corresponding to one of anomalies identified through remote-sensing, looking north. Wall is 1.2m thick with roughly finished stones comprising exterior faces on either side and interior rubble fill.

Fig. 4: Fig. 4: The eastern, north–south trending Inca wall (Bray and Echeverría 2008–2009) - Read More…

Fig. 5: The western, north–south trending Inca wall (Bray and Echeverría 2008–2009)

Fig. 5: The western, north–south trending Inca wall (Bray and Echeverría 2008–2009)

Fig. 5: The western, north–south trending Inca wall (Fea 2), also on north side of semi-subterranean temple, on right side of photo, with shallow rock-covered pit burial (Fea 3) located to east of wall in center of photo. Rock debris used to cap burial included numerous fragments of broken manos and metates.

Fig. 5: The western, north–south trending Inca wall (Bray and Echeverría 2008–2009) - Read More…