To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Although the origins of domestic animals have been well-documented, it is unclear when livestock were first exploited for secondary products, such as milk. The analysis of remnant fats preserved in ceramic vessels from two agricultural sites in central and eastern Europe dating to the Early Neolithic (5900-5500 cal BC) are best explained by the presence of milk residues. On this basis, the authors suggest that dairying featured in early European farming economies. The evidence is evaluated in the light of analysis of faunal remains from this region to determine the scale of dairying. It is suggested that dairying—perhaps of sheep or goats—was initially practised on a small scale and was part of a broad mixed economy.
Assessments of significance depend at least in part on the standpoint of the observer and the context of interpretation. The more prominent the object, the more perspectives are likely to be available. That is certainly the case with Barth. He still stands out in the history of theology in the twentieth century both as a major figure - to put it no more strongly - and also as a disputed figure. He has been hailed by some as the modern church father, and dismissed by others as out of touch and out of date even in his own day, to say nothing of trente ans après.
These thirty years have been the period of my own involvement in theological research and teaching – a period in which a not uncritical engagement with Barth has been one recurrent activity. It was within a few weeks of beginning my doctoral study in Tu¨bingen in 1968 that I heard from Ju¨rgen Moltmann of Barth’s death the day before. That puts me in the generation of those who began theological work to some degree under Barth’s shadow and in awareness of his impact, but who never actually met or heard him in the flesh. My acquaintance with him is strictly either literary or second-hand through my contacts and friendships with many who did know him or studied with him. This limitation has perhaps both a negative and a positive aspect. The negative aspect is that we increasingly have only a truncated Barth before us – the work rather than the man. The positive aspect is that this puts me in the same boat as those for whom this collection of studies is being written – and that Barth himself would have insisted that the work he attempted to do, especially in dogmatic theology, was his primary commitment and main contribution.
For some two hundred years following its mid-eighteenth-century discovery by Mingarelli in a manuscript lacking title page and the opening chapters, the De Trinitate was regarded as the chief surviving work of Didymus the Blind (313–98), the last really distinguished leader of the catechetical school in Alexandria. Mingarelli based his ascription in part on the numerous and striking verbal parallels between this work and Didymus' De Spiritu Sancto, which survives only in Jerome's Latin translation. The last generation, however, has seen a remarkable shift in scholarly opinion on the matter: the discovery of the Toura papyri in 1941 and the ascription to Didymus of a series of extensive biblical commentaries contained in them has led in turn to comparisons of these works with the De Trinitate which seemed to support the conclusion that Didymus could not also have been the author of the latter. If correct, this conclusion not only requires a radical revision of the entire picture of Didymus and his theological teaching developed before the discovery of the Toura papyri; it also leaves the De Trinitate – a major work by any standards – floating in the void of anonymity. In recent years, study of Didymus has concentrated on the Toura commentaries; the De Trinitate has received relatively scant attention, though it is arguably more theologically substantial and significant than the commentaries, whether or not Didymus is the author.