‘Carantanian / Köttlach’ jewellery from southwest Slovakia and from the other parts of the Carpathian Basin. In the Slovak and Hungarian archaeological literature, a small group of early medieval jewellery from southwest Slovakia was labelled as being of ‘Carantanian / Köttlach’ provenance, meaning that it originated from Eastern Alps region (today’s Austria and Slovenia). The goal of the article is a revision of the issue of provenance in the context of analogous finds from Moravia and the Carpathian Basin (i.e. today’s Hungary, western Romania and northeastern Croatia). The provenenace from the Eastern Alps region can be confirmed in the case of several Slovak finds only, the others are of local origin. Also, from the point of view of chronology, we are dealing with a relatively heterogenous group of jewellery, with a date-range from the turn of the 8th-9th centuries to the 11th century. The author tries to demonstrate that the argument in the middle of the 20th century and later about the ‘influences from the Eastern Alps region’ was dependent on the state of archaeological research at that time. It was a viewpoint that over-emphasised the importance of early medieval ‘Köttlach culture’ in Eastern Alps region, especially for the spreading of some jewellery types to other regions of middle and southeastern Europe., Šimon Ungerman., and Obsahuje seznam literatury
"Records of witchcrafts trials" From the State Archives in Poznań. The founders of the team, the process of its formation, the structure and usefulness for research into witch-hunts.
The article deals with the question of correct reconstruction of and solutions to the ancient paradoxes. Analyzing one contemporary example of a reconstruction of the so-called Crocodile Paradox, taken from Sorensen’s A Brief History of Paradox, the author shows how the original pattern of paradox could have been incorrectly transformed in its meaning by overlooking its adequate historical background. Sorensen’s quoting of Aphthonius, as the author of a certain solution to the paradox, seems to be a systematic failure since the time of Politiano’s erroneous attributing it to Aphthonius. In the conclusion, the author claims that neglecting the historical background of the ancient paradoxes into account, we are neither able to evaluate their modern interpretations as adequate nor their solutions as successful., Článek se zabývá otázkou správné rekonstrukce a řešení starověkých paradoxů. Analýza jednoho současného příkladu rekonstrukce tzv. Krokodýlového paradoxu, převzatého z Sorensenovy stručné historie paradoxu , ukazuje, jak mohl být původní vzor paradoxu ve svém významu nesprávně transformován tím, že přehlédl jeho historické pozadí. Sorensenovo citování Aphthoniusa, jako autora určitého řešení paradoxu, se jeví jako systematické selhání od doby, kdy ho politiánův omyl přisuzoval Aphthoniusovi. V závěru autorka prohlašuje, že zanedbání historického pozadí starověkých paradoxů není schopno hodnotit jejich moderní interpretace jako adekvátní ani jejich řešení jako úspěšná., and Vladimír Marko