Birgitta Eder
Curriculum Vitae
Education:
1980-1986: University of Vienna (Ancient History and Classical Archaeology).
1986: MA Graduation (University of Vienna).
1988-1989: Postgraduate Studies University College London (with J.N. Coldstream).
1995: PhD University of Vienna
2018: Habilitation at the TU Darmstadt
Professional appointments:
1989-1994: Research Fellow at the Mykenische Kommission of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna
1997: Research Associate of the German Archaeological Institute (Olympia: EIA Pelopion).
1998-2000: APART-Fellowship of the Austrian Academy of Sciences.
2001-2007: Senior Research Fellow at the Mykenische Kommission of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna
2007-2013: Lecturer in Aegean Archaeology at the University of Freiburg.
2013-2019: Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Oriental and European Archaeology of the Austrian Academy of Sciences
from 2019 head of the Athens Branch of the Austrian Archaeological Institute
Excavations and research in Kakovatos (Triphylia) of an Early Mycenaean site and its environs from 2009 onward.
Address: Austrian Academy of Sciences
Austrian Archaeological Institute
Athens Branch
Leoforos Alexandras 26
10683 Athens
Greece
Education:
1980-1986: University of Vienna (Ancient History and Classical Archaeology).
1986: MA Graduation (University of Vienna).
1988-1989: Postgraduate Studies University College London (with J.N. Coldstream).
1995: PhD University of Vienna
2018: Habilitation at the TU Darmstadt
Professional appointments:
1989-1994: Research Fellow at the Mykenische Kommission of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna
1997: Research Associate of the German Archaeological Institute (Olympia: EIA Pelopion).
1998-2000: APART-Fellowship of the Austrian Academy of Sciences.
2001-2007: Senior Research Fellow at the Mykenische Kommission of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna
2007-2013: Lecturer in Aegean Archaeology at the University of Freiburg.
2013-2019: Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Oriental and European Archaeology of the Austrian Academy of Sciences
from 2019 head of the Athens Branch of the Austrian Archaeological Institute
Excavations and research in Kakovatos (Triphylia) of an Early Mycenaean site and its environs from 2009 onward.
Address: Austrian Academy of Sciences
Austrian Archaeological Institute
Athens Branch
Leoforos Alexandras 26
10683 Athens
Greece
less
Related Authors
InterestsView All (19)
Uploads
ÖAI Athens Events by Birgitta Eder
Books by Birgitta Eder
Die Testimonien erscheinen in Text und Übersetzung, mit philologisch-historischem Kommentar und Überlieferungsgeschichte. Es ergeben sich die antiken Vorstellungen von Entstehung, Ablauf, politischem Zweck und moralischem Wert der schon damals umstrittenen Einrichtung, die ursprünglich vor allem als Waffe der demokratischen Gleichheit gegen überheblich erscheinende Aristokraten diente."
B.Eder's contributions T 18-21. [Andokides] 4, gegen Alkibiades. Vorbemerkungen: Verfasserschaft und Abfassungszeit der Rede, 277-301. (zusammen mit H. Heftner) T 34. Aristoteles, Pol. 3, 1284 a 17-37 (ca. 347-335 v. Chr.): Ostrakismos dient zur Wiederherstellung demokratischer Gleichheit,421-427. T 27. Demosthenes 23, 204 f. (352/1 v. Chr.): Die Ostrakisierung des Themistokles wegen Überheblichkeit (470 v. Chr.),368-372. T 13. Aristophanes fr. 661 PCG III2 (ca. 416 v. Chr.?): Ostrakisierung eines Dummkopfs, vielleicht des Hyperbolos (416 v. Chr.),240-242. T 10. Aristophanes in Schol. Aristoph. Vesp. 947 a (427-414 v. Chr.): Die Ostrakisierung des Thukydides Melesiou (443 v. Chr.?),220-222."
Triphylia: Kakovatos and Kleidi-Samikon by Birgitta Eder
and Messenia was defined by the river Alpheios in the north and the Neda River in the south, and was part of the territory of the Elean state in the Classical period. The study of finds and
sites of the Early Mycenaean period (LH I‒IIA) reveals that the region of Triphylia was connected to Messenia in the south on the level of cultural exchanges. This is the case for the distribution of Early Mycenaean pottery and tholos tombs as well as for the prestige items found in the tholos tombs of Kakovatos which is the most prominent Triphylian site during this period. Amber spacer plates, oriental star disk pendants of blue glass and gold jewelry in the shape of owls illustrate the connections among the elite burials of the early Mycenaean period of Messenia and the southern Greek Mainland.
Relations with Messenia appear to have been strong in the early Mycenaean period, and the palace of Pylos in Messenia may well have exercised some influence on the region of Triphylia
during the periods of LH IIIA‒B. The question of the northern boundary of the Pylos polity in respect to its administrative territory has been a matter of controversy. J. Chadwick and
J. Bennet suggested a boundary line along the Neda River or even further south, while others have argued for a larger area including part or all of Triphylia. Arguments depend on the interpretation of topographical names, and in fact a group of place names and ethnics in the Linear B-texts from Pylos appears to point to the geographical region of the Alpheios valley and its neighborhood. An analysis of the assessments of the nine districts of the Hither Province of Pylos may in fact suggest that the polity of Pylos was possibly larger and included at least parts of Triphylia. Rather than the Neda River the mountain ange of the Lapithos appears to have created something like a visible barrier.
LBA studies by Birgitta Eder
Abstract: The cultural unity that shapes the character of the Mycenaean palatial period between LH IIIA1 and LH IIIB Final has chronological as well as geographical limits, and thus cannot be merely accidental. As a historical phenomenon it deserves a thorough explanation, and recent discussion sees a growing number of scholars arguing for the existence of unified political system. We attempt to sketch a series of arguments supporting the idea of a single Mycenaean political entity in the southern and central Aegean. Apart from a discussion of the limited data of the Linear B texts we offer an archaeological perspective to the rise of the politically unified system of the Mycenaean palatial period. In addition, we analyse the available historical references to the political power(s) of the Aegean in Egyptian and Hittite texts in the framework of Mycenaean international relations.
The mobility of the emblems of a palatial ideology played a significant part in the dissemination of ideas into the geography of Mycenaean Greece. In the context of performative space, the main perspective of the paper is dedicated to the growing evidence for Mycenaean sanctuaries, which were located in the countryside beyond the palaces, either on mountain peaks or crossroads.
Die Testimonien erscheinen in Text und Übersetzung, mit philologisch-historischem Kommentar und Überlieferungsgeschichte. Es ergeben sich die antiken Vorstellungen von Entstehung, Ablauf, politischem Zweck und moralischem Wert der schon damals umstrittenen Einrichtung, die ursprünglich vor allem als Waffe der demokratischen Gleichheit gegen überheblich erscheinende Aristokraten diente."
B.Eder's contributions T 18-21. [Andokides] 4, gegen Alkibiades. Vorbemerkungen: Verfasserschaft und Abfassungszeit der Rede, 277-301. (zusammen mit H. Heftner) T 34. Aristoteles, Pol. 3, 1284 a 17-37 (ca. 347-335 v. Chr.): Ostrakismos dient zur Wiederherstellung demokratischer Gleichheit,421-427. T 27. Demosthenes 23, 204 f. (352/1 v. Chr.): Die Ostrakisierung des Themistokles wegen Überheblichkeit (470 v. Chr.),368-372. T 13. Aristophanes fr. 661 PCG III2 (ca. 416 v. Chr.?): Ostrakisierung eines Dummkopfs, vielleicht des Hyperbolos (416 v. Chr.),240-242. T 10. Aristophanes in Schol. Aristoph. Vesp. 947 a (427-414 v. Chr.): Die Ostrakisierung des Thukydides Melesiou (443 v. Chr.?),220-222."
and Messenia was defined by the river Alpheios in the north and the Neda River in the south, and was part of the territory of the Elean state in the Classical period. The study of finds and
sites of the Early Mycenaean period (LH I‒IIA) reveals that the region of Triphylia was connected to Messenia in the south on the level of cultural exchanges. This is the case for the distribution of Early Mycenaean pottery and tholos tombs as well as for the prestige items found in the tholos tombs of Kakovatos which is the most prominent Triphylian site during this period. Amber spacer plates, oriental star disk pendants of blue glass and gold jewelry in the shape of owls illustrate the connections among the elite burials of the early Mycenaean period of Messenia and the southern Greek Mainland.
Relations with Messenia appear to have been strong in the early Mycenaean period, and the palace of Pylos in Messenia may well have exercised some influence on the region of Triphylia
during the periods of LH IIIA‒B. The question of the northern boundary of the Pylos polity in respect to its administrative territory has been a matter of controversy. J. Chadwick and
J. Bennet suggested a boundary line along the Neda River or even further south, while others have argued for a larger area including part or all of Triphylia. Arguments depend on the interpretation of topographical names, and in fact a group of place names and ethnics in the Linear B-texts from Pylos appears to point to the geographical region of the Alpheios valley and its neighborhood. An analysis of the assessments of the nine districts of the Hither Province of Pylos may in fact suggest that the polity of Pylos was possibly larger and included at least parts of Triphylia. Rather than the Neda River the mountain ange of the Lapithos appears to have created something like a visible barrier.
Abstract: The cultural unity that shapes the character of the Mycenaean palatial period between LH IIIA1 and LH IIIB Final has chronological as well as geographical limits, and thus cannot be merely accidental. As a historical phenomenon it deserves a thorough explanation, and recent discussion sees a growing number of scholars arguing for the existence of unified political system. We attempt to sketch a series of arguments supporting the idea of a single Mycenaean political entity in the southern and central Aegean. Apart from a discussion of the limited data of the Linear B texts we offer an archaeological perspective to the rise of the politically unified system of the Mycenaean palatial period. In addition, we analyse the available historical references to the political power(s) of the Aegean in Egyptian and Hittite texts in the framework of Mycenaean international relations.
The mobility of the emblems of a palatial ideology played a significant part in the dissemination of ideas into the geography of Mycenaean Greece. In the context of performative space, the main perspective of the paper is dedicated to the growing evidence for Mycenaean sanctuaries, which were located in the countryside beyond the palaces, either on mountain peaks or crossroads.
relevance for the development of the region’s cultural landscape. The work led to a distinct overall impression of the settlement structures: intensive use and dense human occupation combined with extreme fragmentation.
Within this environment, the sanctuary of Olympia formed a highly specific centre. This centrality is also reflected by the ancient perception of space and by the ›espace vécu‹. The sanctuary was in many ways intertwined
with its environment through ritual practices and mythical narratives. A special, sacred landscape charged with ›lieux de mémoire‹ evolved around the sanctuary. At the same time, these interconnections significantly contributed to the social and political integration of the region and hence also to the consolidation of Elis with respect to the Panhellenic world.
vessels (oinochoai and jugs) as well as by kraters for
mixing wine. Communal drinking will thus have formed
an essential part of the festival activities in the early
sanctuary."
Woher kamen welche Rohstoffe und welche Fertigprodukte, und unter welchen Bedingungen wurden sie von wem und durch wen verhandelt? Lassen sich Regionen der Herstellung und direkte als auch indirekte Wege der Verteilung ermitteln? Welche Regeln existieren im überregionalen Austausch? Welche Möglichkeiten und Pflichten kamen den Kleinstaaten der Levante zwischen den Großmächten der Hethiter, Assyrer und Ägypter zu und welche Rolle spielten die mykenischen Paläste der Ägäis im internationalen Geflecht des Güteraustauschs?
Im Rahmen des internationalen Symposions in Freiburg haben Archäologen, Philologen und Historiker diese Themen konkret anhand der aktuellen Auswertung archäologischer und schriftlicher Zeugnisse auf interdisziplinärer Ebene diskutiert und gemeinsam Perspektiven auf die konkreten Formen des Austauschs im Zusammenspiel der politischen und wirtschaftlichen Kräfte entwickelt.
The Late Bronze Age in the Eastern Mediterranean belongs to the most captivating chapters in the history of the Ancient World: Various cuneiform documents and archaeological sources illustrate the numerous contacts between different polities in the 2nd millennium BCE. Reciprocal gift exchange within the framework of diplomatic contacts and redistributive mobility of goods in asymmetric political relations shaped regional and supra-regional communication in different ways. Following the detailed discussions about modes of culture contacts and exchanges in previous research the contributions in the present volume address questions of the specific mechanisms and routes of exchange.
How and by which means did material commodities and knowledge circulate among the Great Powers, lesser independent states and vassal kingdoms of the Aegean, Anatolia, Syria, the Levant, Mesopotamia and Egypt? Where did the different raw materials and finished products come from, and under which conditions and by whom were they negotiated? Is it possible to determine regions of production and direct and indirect channels of distribution? Which rules were applied in the supra-regional exchange? Which possibilities and which obligations did the vassal kingdoms of the Levant have towards the Great Powers of the Hittites, Assyrians and Egyptians? Which role did the Mycenaean palaces of the Aegean play within the “international” network of exchanges? Can we develop a model of political and economic interaction?
During the symposium at Freiburg University archaeologists, philologists and historians discussed these issues on the basis of the current evaluation of the archaeological and written evidence within an interdisciplinary framework and developed perspectives on the specific forms of exchange (re)considering the interaction of political and economic forces.