title: Acigöl rhyolite field, Central Anatolia (part 1): high-resolution dating of eruption episodes and zircon growth rates

authors: Schmitt, Axel K.

subjects: Zircon

abstract: Protracted pre-eruptive zircon residence is frequently detected in continental rhyolites and can conflict with thermal models, indicating briefer magma cooling durations if scaled to erupted volumes. Here, we present combined U-Th and (U-Th)/He zircon ages from the Acigöl rhyolite field (Central Anatolia, Turkey), which is part of a Quaternary bimodal volcanic complex. Unlike other geochronometers, this approach dates crystallization and eruption on the same crystals, allowing for internal consistency testing. Despite the overall longevity of Acigöl rhyolite volcanism and systematic trends of progressive depletion in compatible trace elements and decreasing zircon saturation temperatures, we find that zircon crystallized in two brief pulses corresponding to eruptions in the eastern and western part of the field during Middle and Late Pleistocene times, respectively. For Late Pleistocene zircon, resolvable differences exist between interior (average: 30.7 ± 0.9 ka; 1σ error) and rim (21.9 ± 1.3 ka) crystallization ages. These translate into radial crystal growth rates of ∼10⁻¹³ to 10⁻¹⁴ cm/s, broadly consistent with those constrained by diffusion experiments. Rim crystallization and (U-Th)/He eruption ages (24.2 ± 0.4 ka) overlap within uncertainty. Evidence for brief zircon residence at Acigöl contrasts with many other rhyolite fields, suggesting that protracted zircon crystallization in, or recycling from, long-lived crystal mushes is not ubiquitous in continental silicic magma systems. Instead, the span of pre-eruptive zircon ages is consistent with autochthonous crystallization in individual small-volume magma batches that originated from basaltic precursors.

text: Acigöl rhyolite field, Central Anatolia (part 1): high-resolution dating of eruption episodes and zircon growth rates Protracted pre-eruptive zircon residence is frequently detected in continental rhyolites and can conflict with thermal models, indicating briefer magma cooling durations if scaled to erupted volumes. Here, we present combined U-Th and (U-Th)/He zircon ages from the Acigöl rhyolite field (Central Anatolia, Turkey), which is part of a Quaternary bimodal volcanic complex. Unlike other geochronometers, this approach dates crystallization and eruption on the same crystals, allowing for internal consistency testing. Despite the overall longevity of Acigöl rhyolite volcanism and systematic trends of progressive depletion in compatible trace elements and decreasing zircon saturation temperatures, we find that zircon crystallized in two brief pulses corresponding to eruptions in the eastern and western part of the field during Middle and Late Pleistocene times, respectively. For Late Pleistocene zircon, resolvable differences exist between interior (average: 30.7 ± 0.9 ka; 1σ error) and rim (21.9 ± 1.3 ka) crystallization ages. These translate into radial crystal growth rates of ∼10⁻¹³ to 10⁻¹⁴ cm/s, broadly consistent with those constrained by diffusion experiments. Rim crystallization and (U-Th)/He eruption ages (24.2 ± 0.4 ka) overlap within uncertainty. Evidence for brief zircon residence at Acigöl contrasts with many other rhyolite fields, suggesting that protracted zircon crystallization in, or recycling from, long-lived crystal mushes is not ubiquitous in continental silicic magma systems. Instead, the span of pre-eruptive zircon ages is consistent with autochthonous crystallization in individual small-volume magma batches that originated from basaltic precursors.

year: 2011

title: The reception of Grabbe’s Hannibal in the German theatre

authors: Sutherland, Margaret Anne

abstract: This study has undertaken to investigate the reception of Christian Dietrich Grabbe’s tragedy, Hannibal, in the German theatre. Before the main topic could be approached, an outline needed to be provided in an expositional part of the genesis of the drama and the history of its publication; for the appearance and publication of the text marks the beginning of any reception process.
The thesis is divided into two major parts. The first deals with the adaptations of the drama, prepared with theatrical portrayal in mind. These act as a bridge between the original text and its realization in the theatre. The second part is devoted to the productions as seen mainly through the eyes of theatre critics who are able to give some permanence to a transitory experience by capturing it in writing.
Between 1901 and 1940, there were five printed adaptations of Hannibal: those of Spielmann (1901), Kilian (1919), Jessner (1926), Martin (1940), and Haas (1940). The adaptors themselves were recipients and created examples of productive reception which were able to be passed on to the public by way of the theatre. The adaptors all encountered similar problems when confronted with Grabbe’s original, and to make the drama suitable for the stage, the structure had to be modified, lists of dramatis personae given and stage directions altered or added. A sixth adaptation was that of Brecht who began to prepare it for the Deutsches Theater, Berlin. It remained a fragment but shows that he wished to diverge from, rather than conform to, the original. The adaptations performed were those of Kilian, Jessner, Martin, and Haas. 
The productions of Hannibal spanned the period from 1916 till 1958, after which time the tragedy seems to have been ignored by the German theatre. The main aim of this part is to make use of critiques as a method of obtaining an impression of individual presentations and any special tendencies in interpretation and particular dramaturgical problems or trends. Apart from the 1916 portrayal, the productions have been arranged into three groups: those from 1918 to 1932, 1933 to 1945, and 1946 to the present day. From each group, two major productions have been regarded closely. Further productions have been dealt with more briefly at the end of each section.
Receptive comments reveal that the presentations were usually understood in the context of the political, ideological, or philosophical climate of the time. The work placed enormous strains on the theatre. Innovative technological solutions had to be found to ensure fluency of action, and an outstanding actor was required for the title hero who was played by some of the greatest actors on the German stage: Steinrueck, Krauss, George, Meinecke, Schieske, and Zeidler.
Whilst the drama was played on a number of occasions during the 1920s, it experienced its heyday in the theatre in the Nazi period and appeared at National Socialist festivals held in honour of the dramatist. Grabbe was repudiated in the years immediately after the war and the revival of interest in Hannibal in the 1950s was shown to be limited and apparently short-lived. 
To give a visual aid to the reader, I have included documentation at the end of my thesis in the form of a table of all productions, a play-bill for each of the six major ones, and photos of stage settings and leading and supporting actors.

text: The reception of Grabbe’s Hannibal in the German theatre This study has undertaken to investigate the reception of Christian Dietrich Grabbe’s tragedy, Hannibal, in the German theatre. Before the main topic could be approached, an outline needed to be provided in an expositional part of the genesis of the drama and the history of its publication; for the appearance and publication of the text marks the beginning of any reception process.
The thesis is divided into two major parts. The first deals with the adaptations of the drama, prepared with theatrical portrayal in mind. These act as a bridge between the original text and its realization in the theatre. The second part is devoted to the productions as seen mainly through the eyes of theatre critics who are able to give some permanence to a transitory experience by capturing it in writing.
Between 1901 and 1940, there were five printed adaptations of Hannibal: those of Spielmann (1901), Kilian (1919), Jessner (1926), Martin (1940), and Haas (1940). The adaptors themselves were recipients and created examples of productive reception which were able to be passed on to the public by way of the theatre. The adaptors all encountered similar problems when confronted with Grabbe’s original, and to make the drama suitable for the stage, the structure had to be modified, lists of dramatis personae given and stage directions altered or added. A sixth adaptation was that of Brecht who began to prepare it for the Deutsches Theater, Berlin. It remained a fragment but shows that he wished to diverge from, rather than conform to, the original. The adaptations performed were those of Kilian, Jessner, Martin, and Haas. 
The productions of Hannibal spanned the period from 1916 till 1958, after which time the tragedy seems to have been ignored by the German theatre. The main aim of this part is to make use of critiques as a method of obtaining an impression of individual presentations and any special tendencies in interpretation and particular dramaturgical problems or trends. Apart from the 1916 portrayal, the productions have been arranged into three groups: those from 1918 to 1932, 1933 to 1945, and 1946 to the present day. From each group, two major productions have been regarded closely. Further productions have been dealt with more briefly at the end of each section.
Receptive comments reveal that the presentations were usually understood in the context of the political, ideological, or philosophical climate of the time. The work placed enormous strains on the theatre. Innovative technological solutions had to be found to ensure fluency of action, and an outstanding actor was required for the title hero who was played by some of the greatest actors on the German stage: Steinrueck, Krauss, George, Meinecke, Schieske, and Zeidler.
Whilst the drama was played on a number of occasions during the 1920s, it experienced its heyday in the theatre in the Nazi period and appeared at National Socialist festivals held in honour of the dramatist. Grabbe was repudiated in the years immediately after the war and the revival of interest in Hannibal in the 1950s was shown to be limited and apparently short-lived. 
To give a visual aid to the reader, I have included documentation at the end of my thesis in the form of a table of all productions, a play-bill for each of the six major ones, and photos of stage settings and leading and supporting actors.

year: 1980

title: He kohikohinga kōrero nō Ngāti Kuia

authors: Hawea, Celia

subjects: Ngāti Kuia

abstract: Ko te tikanga o tēnei mahi rangahau kia whakautu i te pātai e whai ake nei. He aha ngā kōrero-ā-waha, ngā kōrero i roto i ngā pukapuka hoki ka pūmau tonu i ēnei rā mō ngā uri o Ngāti Kuia mō ngā tau kei te heke mai? 

Ko tēnei he kohikohinga nō ngā kōrero o Ngāti Kuia tētahi iwi e noho ana i te Tauihu o te Waka-o-Māui. Ētahi o ngā iwi Māori he maha ngā kōrero e pā ana ki a rātou, engari ko tēnei te pukapuka tuatahi tonu ka tāia e pā ana ki a Ngāti Kuia. Ehara tēnei i te titiro hōhonu, te titiro whānui rānei i ngā kōrero engari he kohikohinga noa iho nō ngā kōrero mō Ngāti Kuia ki roto te pukapuka kotahi. Nā reira, ki te hiahia tētahi kia whāia tēnei huarahi, koinei he tīmatanga, he paku āwhina hoki mōna. 

Ka āhua toru ngā wehenga o te kōrero nei. Ka tīmata i te kupu whakataki, i muri iho ko ngā āhuatanga o te mahi, arā, i pēhea ngā kōrero i kohikohia, ā, ko te whakapapa me ngā tūhonohononga o Ngāti Kuia ki ētahi atu iwi. Ko te wāhanga tuarua, ko te kōrero o nehe rā, arā, ko ngā kōrero mō ngā atua a Tāwhaki rāua ko Māui, he kōrero mō Kupe, he whakataukī, he kōrero hoki mō ngā taniwha o te iwi. Nā, ko te wāhanga tuatoru e pā ana ki ngā tāngata rongonui o Ngāti Kuia, arā, ko Tūtepourangi, ko Tamairangi, ko Hinepoupou, ko Waikura, ko Kehaia.

text: He kohikohinga kōrero nō Ngāti Kuia Ko te tikanga o tēnei mahi rangahau kia whakautu i te pātai e whai ake nei. He aha ngā kōrero-ā-waha, ngā kōrero i roto i ngā pukapuka hoki ka pūmau tonu i ēnei rā mō ngā uri o Ngāti Kuia mō ngā tau kei te heke mai? 

Ko tēnei he kohikohinga nō ngā kōrero o Ngāti Kuia tētahi iwi e noho ana i te Tauihu o te Waka-o-Māui. Ētahi o ngā iwi Māori he maha ngā kōrero e pā ana ki a rātou, engari ko tēnei te pukapuka tuatahi tonu ka tāia e pā ana ki a Ngāti Kuia. Ehara tēnei i te titiro hōhonu, te titiro whānui rānei i ngā kōrero engari he kohikohinga noa iho nō ngā kōrero mō Ngāti Kuia ki roto te pukapuka kotahi. Nā reira, ki te hiahia tētahi kia whāia tēnei huarahi, koinei he tīmatanga, he paku āwhina hoki mōna. 

Ka āhua toru ngā wehenga o te kōrero nei. Ka tīmata i te kupu whakataki, i muri iho ko ngā āhuatanga o te mahi, arā, i pēhea ngā kōrero i kohikohia, ā, ko te whakapapa me ngā tūhonohononga o Ngāti Kuia ki ētahi atu iwi. Ko te wāhanga tuarua, ko te kōrero o nehe rā, arā, ko ngā kōrero mō ngā atua a Tāwhaki rāua ko Māui, he kōrero mō Kupe, he whakataukī, he kōrero hoki mō ngā taniwha o te iwi. Nā, ko te wāhanga tuatoru e pā ana ki ngā tāngata rongonui o Ngāti Kuia, arā, ko Tūtepourangi, ko Tamairangi, ko Hinepoupou, ko Waikura, ko Kehaia.

year: 1995