News

Hamaxia

Hamaxia


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Hamaxia (now known as Sinek Kalesi or Sinekkalesi, near the modern Alanya) was a city in western Cilicia in southern Turkey known for its lush landscape, cedar forests, and thriving timber export business. It was located on a high hill near to the city of Coracesium (modern Alanya) and its port was Aunesis on the coast of the Mediterranean. When the city was founded, how it developed, and when it was abandoned is unknown. It was governed in its early history by a series of empires (Akkadians, Hittites, Assyrians, and others) before becoming a province of Rome.

Prior to its development under Rome, Hamaxia was probably already involved in the timber industry, providing wood to Egypt. Cilicia was a known trade partner with Egypt, and it is reasonable to assume that Hamaxia, one of the major exporters of timber, would have been one of the Cilician cities involved. It was already associated with shipbuilding by the time of Mark Antony (l. 83-30 BCE) and Cleopatra VII (l. 69-30 BCE).

Hamaxia is first mentioned as a city in the 3rd century BCE, after which the region is referenced only twice, once by Strabo (l. 64 BCE - 24 CE) and once in the 3rd-century CE guidebook Stadiasmus Maris Magni for its natural beauty and abundant resources.

Strabo mentions the city in his Geography, noting that it was part of the parcel of Cilicia which Antony gave to Cleopatra specifically for building her navy:

After Coracesium, one comes to Arsinoe, a city; then to Hamaxia, a settlement on a hill, with a harbor, where ship-building timber is brought down. Most of this timber is cedar; and it appears that this region beyond others abounds in cedar-wood for ships; and it was on this account that Antony assigned this region to Cleopatra, since it was suited to the building of her fleets. (14.5.3)

Hamaxia is also referenced in the Roman guidebook Stadiasmus Maris Magni, section 208. This work was an important resource for sailors as it described ports around the Mediterranean Sea, distances between each, and directions in reaching them. The city continued to thrive into the early Roman Empire but depleted its resources and became impoverished. At some unknown point it was abandoned, most likely because it was no longer economically viable due to deforestation.

Early History & Piracy

Cilicia was inhabited as far back as the Neolithic Period with evidence of development pre-dating 9,000 BCE. The peoples known as the Luwians and Hatti lived in the region c. 2500 BCE before it was taken by the Akkadian Empire who held it c. 2334-2083 BCE and then the Hittites controlled it c. 1700-1200 BCE. From the time of its earliest mention, Cilicia was referenced as comprising two distinct regions: “Smooth Cilicia” of the fertile lowlands and “Rough Cilicia” of the mountains and rocky coast.

Love History?

Sign up for our free weekly email newsletter!

The Cilician pirates Found refuge in the many snug & concealed harbors along Cilicia's coast, including the port of Aunesis at Hamaxia.

During the Hittite era, the future Hamaxia was a small town in the independent country later known as Pamphylia. What its name was under the Hittites is unknown, but it was part of a vassal state on the coast. The city was located on a high hill up from the coast and was probably associated even then with the timber industry. The Hittites had established trade with Egypt after the Battle of Kadesh in 1274 BCE and, although Lebanon was Egypt's primary source for wood, Cilicia also supplied timber, and it is likely much of it came from around Hamaxia.

After the fall of the Hittite Empire, the region returned to rule under the Hatti until the Assyrian Empire held it c. 700-612 BCE and then the Persians between 547-333 BCE when Alexander the Great took Cilicia. After his death in 323 BCE, it was divided between two of his generals who established the Seleucid and Ptolemaic empires. Rome warred with the Seleucid king Antiochus III (r. 222-187 BCE), defeating him in 190 BCE and setting terms in the famous Treaty of Apamea (188 BCE) but did not take full advantage of Cilicia.

As the Seleucids continued to lose power in the region, piracy developed among the people as the principle economy of “Rough Cilicia” (although it was probably already practiced decades, if not centuries, before). The Cilician pirates (who were not all Cilician by nationality) thrived in their raids on ships and ports around the Mediterranean and found refuge in the many snug and concealed harbors along Cilicia's coast, including the port of Aunesis at Hamaxia.

Rome first became involved with the region in 103 BCE when it launched a campaign to curtail piracy in Rough Cilicia and tried again between 78-74 BCE. Both campaigns firmly established Roman presence in the region but did little to curtail piracy. Pompey the Great (l. c. 108-48 BCE) defeated them finally in 67 BCE in the sea battle of Korakesion (also known as Coracesium) just off the coast of Hamaxia. Those pirates who did not surrender were driven ashore and later surrendered in Coracesium. Pompey then relocated many of them to the lowlands and divided Cilicia into six districts. At this time, the lowlands became known as Cilicia Campestris and “Rough Cilicia” became Cilicia Aspera, which translates to basically the same thing.

Egypt, Rome, & Timber

Cilicia Campestris exported many goods under Rome (as they had previously) including beans, cereals, fish, sesame, wheat and barley, grapes, and wine but the primary export of Cilicia Aspera was timber. Wood was used in making ships, small boats, coffins (sarcophagi), furniture, artworks, home furnishings (such as chests and jewelry boxes), and barrels among other objects.

Trade with Egypt was no doubt lucrative because Egypt, having no forestation, had to import all their wood and required a significant amount on a regular basis. Egyptian trade with the Levant was established by the time of the Old Kingdom (c. 2613-2181 BCE), and there may have been trade agreements with the Hatti of Cilicia at the same time, but this is unclear. By the time of the New Kingdom (c. 1570 - c. 1069 BCE), however, Egyptian trade with Cilicia was well established and the Egyptian Empire required more timber than ever. In the Middle Kingdom (2040-1782 BCE), the boats of the pharaoh Senusret III (r. 1878 - c. 1860 BCE) required “6- 8 tons of raw timber each equating to roughly 20 trees” (Creasman, 160). By the time of the New Kingdom, the boats were larger and, besides functional vessels, even more wood was needed for the ceremonial vessels known as the Barques of the Gods. The Barque of Amun and the Barque of Osiris were two enormous ships of the gods which were brought out at festivals. Working to refurbish these ships every year was considered one of the greatest honors one could experience in one's life.

Even so, except for work on the ships of the gods, the Egyptians were known for their efforts in recycling. As far back as the Old Kingdom, there is evidence of the Egyptians reusing wood to shore up tombs, as the bases for artworks, and even to repair or construct ships. Recycled wood is apparent in the famous ship of the pharaoh Khufu (r. 2589-2566 BCE), and this paradigm continues throughout Egypt's history. So even though they required vast amounts of timber, they imported far less than they needed because of their recycling efforts.

Rome did not adhere to this same model and needed significantly more wood during the period of their empire than Egypt had. When Mark Antony and Cleopatra met Octavian at the Battle of Actium in 31 BCE, Cleopatra's ships were made from the wood of Hamaxia (Life in the Truck Lane, Rauh, et. al., 264) and it is likely that many of Octavian's ships were also. Following Actium, Octavian became Augustus Caesar (r. 27 BCE - 14 CE) of the Roman Empire and Rome required even more timber for domestic uses such as villa gardens, artwork, barrels, buckets, and other such things as well as for merchant ships, warships, tow-ships, and fishing vessels. Any ship damaged or sunk had to be repaired or replaced, and the Romans were not as keen on recycling as the Egyptians had been. Hamaxia would have been among the chief suppliers of timber in Cilicia and the harvest and export of wood made the city wealthy.

Hamaxia & the Timber Industry

Hamaxia thrived because of the timber trade but at the cost of the very environment they depended on.

The site of ancient Hamaxia has not been excavated, and there are few references to it in literature, so an evaluation of the city's wealth must be based on the physical evidence of the modern-day site. It was probably already a thriving timber-export city as it was worth noting by Strabo, and the ruins in the present day suggest a city of considerable affluence. There is an impressive cistern, a large public pool and fountain, a temple, and exedra (portico) with seats where people would have sat overlooking the Mediterranean. There is also evidence of a good-sized agora (marketplace), a necropolis, inscriptions in stone paving to the god Hermes, and portions of thick city walls. The debris field suggests the city was brought down by an earthquake.

Hamaxia, and other cities like it, thrived because of the timber trade but at the cost of the very environment they depended on. Scholar Nicholas K. Rauh of Perdue University, in his Landscape Ecology and the End of Antiquity: The Archaeology of Deforestation in South Coastal Turkey, notes how Cilicia under the Romans industrialized at a significant rate unseen before in the region which the environment struggled to keep up with. Rauh comments:

Urban development in Rough Cilicia during the Early Roman era was rapid and robust. The region entered the Roman era in a relatively backward state with little evidence of fire-driven production activities. Nonetheless, during the Pax Romana the region's inhabitants adapted quickly to mainstream production systems and transformed their landscape into a mosaic of small built environments surrounded by lush plots of terraced vineyards and groves of olive, fruit, and nut trees. The inhabitants replaced the region's natural forest cover with manicured, artificially built houses and public buildings of such permanence that their features survive to this day. Most of this development was based on fuel-driven firing technologies and production systems that required enormous quantities of fuel. The most likely fuel source was the region's forests. (5)

In addition to exporting wood to Rome, Hamaxia would have also supplied timber to cities throughout Cilicia. Cities like Iotapa (modern Aytap), not far down the coast from Hamaxia's port, would have required fuel to heat its baths. Iotapa was built in 52 CE by Antiochus IV, King of Commagene (r. 38-72 CE) who founded and named it after his late sister-wife. Antiochus IV is well known as the architect and builder of another and more famous coastal city in the nearby Gazipasa district, Antiochia ad Cragum, which had one of the largest bath complexes in all of Cilicia. The fuel required to heat the Great Bath at Antiochia ad Cragum alone would have been considerable, aside from all the other baths in all the other cities. Houses in Cilicia used wood, and it was also required for artisans and Cilician shipwrights so the deforestation around cities like Hamaxia could have been quite extensive.

Conclusion

In the present day, the ruins of the city sit quietly on the hilltop 1,312 feet (400 meters) above the village of Elikesik. If not for Strabo and the Stadiasmus Maris Magni, no one now would even know its ancient name but, in its prime, Hamaxia was one of the major cities of the southern Cilician coast before depleting the resources which had once made its name worth remembering.


Hamaxitus

Hamaxitus (Ancient Greek: Ἁμαξιτός , romanized: Hamaxitos) was an ancient Greek city in the south-west of the Troad region of Anatolia which was considered to mark the boundary between the Troad and Aeolis. [1] Its surrounding territory was known in Greek as Ἁμαξιτία (Hamaxitia), [2] and included the temple of Apollo Smintheus, the salt pans at Tragasai, and the Satnioeis river (modern Tuzla Çay). [3] It has been located on a rise called Beşiktepe near the village of Gülpınar (previously Külahlı) in the Ayvacık district of Çanakkale Province, Turkey. [4]


Hamaxia incongrua

Hamaxia incongrua is a species of tachinid flies in the genus Hamaxia of the family Tachinidae. [1] It is normally found in the Australasian biorealm, but may also be found in the Oriental and Palearctic realms. [1] [2] It is a parasite of numerous Scarabaeidae species, such as Popillia japonica. [2]

  1. ^ ab O’Hara, James E. Cerretti, Pierfilippo (2016-03-31). "Annotated catalogue of the Tachinidae (Insecta, Diptera) of the Afrotropical Region, with the description of seven new genera". ZooKeys (575): 1–344. doi:10.3897/zookeys.575.6072. ISSN1313-2989. PMC4829880 . PMID27110184.
  2. ^ ab
  3. Gardner, Theodore Roosevelt Parker, Lawrence Bemis (1940). Investigations of the parasites of Popillia japonica and related Scarabaeidae in the Far East from 1929 to 1933, inclusive. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture.

This article related to members of the insect family Tachinidae is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.


The ancient town of Hamaxia / Alanya

The ancient town Hamaxia, in Turkish Sinek Kalesi, is situated about 6 km to the West of Alanya city centre. From the coast road, after the 2nd tunnel from Alanya (1st tunnel from Manavgat), turn north by a big board showing the direction to Elikesik Tesisleri and you will notice two cement factories (Atam Hazir and Alanya Hazir).

After 2,5 km you reach the village Elikesik. There are a few houses where you can park the car and walk the last 100 m to the Roman cistern with remarcable columns. The altitude is 400 metres and vegetation is dense, but the view over the peninsula of Analya to the east and the beaches to the west and the mountains to the north is beautiful. In good weather condition you can see all the way to Gazipaşa in the east and Manavgat in the west. Next to a new built house, an unmarked gravel road turns sharply right and upwards and after 2 km you are at the foot of the mountain and reach the ruins of the former town Hamaxia. Don´t be afraid, lot of bushes close the way, so better wear long trousers and hiking shoes.

The Greek geographer Strabo (63 BC –19 AD) mentioned that the town is blessed with an abundance of cedar trees, suitable for ship building. This is why Antony gave the town to Cleopatra as a present. The town was inhabited from the 1st century and still grew during Byzantine time. From 100-200 AD the town belonged to Alanya it was rather poor - maybe Cleopatra had succeeded in cutting down all the cedars?

First you reach the ancient cistern where the spring comes out of the rock. The still existing basin today is used as a cistern and for irrigation of the terraces. Steps from the pond lead through a thicket to the town. Only the first 8-10 steps are in good condition, the rest of the way requires good condition and good shoes. It may be a good idea to get a guide from the house near the pond. From the north the access is easier, you move along the terraces and do not need a guide. There are remains of a church and various religious and official buildings with Greek inscriptions indicating that there was a Hermes temple in Hamaxia too. With little climbing and research you will find an exedra with inscriptions and semicircular rows of seats and parts of the town wall and watch towers. The necropolis is to the north west. Many of the limestone exhibited in Alanya’s Archeological Museum originally come from excavations in Hamaxia.


Mediterranean

Mediterranean region takes its name from the Mediterranean Sea, and occupies 15% of the total area of Turkey with its 120.000 square kilometers (46.330 square miles) of land. West and Mid-Taurus mountains run parallel to the coast line. Because of high and steep mountains, the valleys between the sea and mountain range are very narrow, the width varies between 120-180 kilometers (75-112 miles). There are some important rivers rising especially during the Spring when the snow is melting, and many lakes on the highlands with a great nature. The population is concentrated especially at the locations suitable for agriculture, tourism, industry and commerce.

The plains of this region are rich in agricultural resources. Fertile soils and a warm Mediterranean climate make the area ideal for growing citrus fruits and grapes, cereals and, in irrigated areas, rice and cotton. Summers are hot, and droughts are not uncommon. Other industrial and agricultural products of the area are wheat, barley, tobacco, green houses and carpet weaving, aluminum and steel. 80% of total of Turkey's oranges and mandarins are grown here, meanwhile bananas are specific only to this region.

The plains around Adana are largely reclaimed flood lands. In the western part of the region, rivers have not cut valleys to the sea movement inland therefore is restricted. The backland is mainly karst and rises sharply from the coast to elevations of up to 2,800 meters (9,200 feet). There are few major cities along this coast, but the triangular plain of Antalya is extensive enough to support the rapidly growing city and port of the same name, which is an important trading center.


Adoretus sinicus (Chinese rose beetle)

Adoretus sinicus is a polyphagous beetle, native to parts of eastern Asia, which has been introduced (probably via the plant trade) widely throughout much of Southeast Asia and many Pacific islands, and has the potential to spread further.

Don't need the entire report?

Generate a print friendly version containing only the sections you need.

Pictures

TitleAdults
CaptionAdoretus sinicus (Chinese rose beetle) adult male (a). adult female (b). (Note scale).
Copyright©Mary Liz Jameson/USDA-ARS, Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center, Hilo, Hawaii
TitleFeeding damage
CaptionTwo adult Adoretus sinicus on a leaf, showing typical interveinal feeding damage.
Copyright©Grant T. McQuate./USDA-ARS, Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center, Hilo, Hawaii.

Identity

Preferred Scientific Name

Preferred Common Name

International Common Names

Local Common Names

EPPO code

Summary of Invasiveness

Adoretus sinicus is a polyphagous beetle, native to parts of eastern Asia, which has been introduced (probably via the plant trade) widely throughout much of Southeast Asia and many Pacific islands, and has the potential to spread further. It feeds on a broad range of plants and can cause severe damage to crops, ornamental plants and trees in places where it has been introduced. USDA-APHIS (United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) included it on the Regulated Plant Pest List (USDA-APHIS, 2000).

Taxonomic Tree

  • Domain: Eukaryota
  • Kingdom: Metazoa
  • Phylum: Arthropoda
  • Subphylum: Uniramia
  • Class: Insecta
  • Order: Coleoptera
  • Family: Scarabaeidae
  • Genus: Adoretus
  • Species: Adoretus sinicus

Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature

The Chinese rose beetle, Adoretus sinicus (Burmeister) belongs to the Order Coleoptera, Family Scarabaeidae, Subfamily Rutelinae, Tribe Adoretini (McQuate and Jameson, 2011b). The family Scarabaeidae contains about 2000 genera and 25,000 species in 20 subfamilies and many tribes (Leal, 1998).  A. sinicus was first identified as A. umbrosus L. and later as A. tenuimaculatus Waterhouse (Pemberton, 1964).  In 1912, Friedrich Ohaus identified the species as Adoretus sinicus in Hawaii.

The genus Adoretus includes approximately 460 species (Krajcik, 2007). Several of the other species are also pests and invasive species: A. bicolor Brenske, A. caliginosus Burmeister, A. compressus (Weber), A. hirsutus Ohaus, A. ranunculus Burmeister, A. tenuimaculatus Waterhouse, and A. versutus Harold (McQuate and Jameson, 2011b).

A. tenuimaculatus Waterhouse, 1875 and A. sinicus (Burmeister), 1855 are sometimes confused see the ‘Similarities to other species/conditions’ section for the morphological distinction between the two.

Description

Taxonomic identification of the Adoretini is problematic.  Adults of species in the genus Adoretus are similar externally, about 10 mm long and brownish in colour with cream-coloured scales. The scientific literature for identification is scarce (regional publications include those by Péringuey (1902), Arrow (1917) and Baraud (1985)), and the form of the male genitalia is considered the best method for identification (McQuate and Jameson, 2011b).

Adults are oblong oval, reddish-brown and covered with cream-coloured, dense scale-like setae which give them an overall greyish colour.  The body is from 10-12 mm long (McQuate and Jameson, 2011b).  Larvae are white, C-shaped grubs with a conspicuous head and short legs (Mau and Kessing, 1991). Pupae are 6.0-12.0 mm long, and covered with dense, short setae (Habeck, 1964).  Eggs are oval, 1.5 x 1.0 mm, and white, becoming duller before hatching (Habeck, 1963).

McQuate and Jameson (2011b) found that females were significantly larger than males (mean ± SE: length (female): 11.65 ± 0.067 mm (male): 10.71 ± 0.047 mm F = 130.91, df = 1, 198, p < 0.0001 width (female): 5.39 ± 0.014 mm (male): 4.97 ± 0.024 mm F = 228.17, df = 1, 198, p < 0.0001), although size overlap between the sexes makes these measurements unreliable for sex determination. The form of the apex of the terminal sternite provides clear separation of the sexes -- it is always rounded posteriorly in females and always quadrate in males. Males have more acute protibial teeth than females, and the relative ratios of protarsomere 1 are also reliable characters for sex determination.

The unusual mouthparts result in a characteristic interveinal defoliation pattern. The labrum is produced ventrally at the middle and forms a tooth-like process that completely separates the mandible and the maxillae into two independent chewing apparati that do not meet in the middle.  Beetles feed with only one side of the mouth at a time this produces paired holes in leaves and a narrow strip of leaf is left intact in the middle (McQuate and Jameson, 2011b, citing Arrow, 1917).

Distribution

According to Mau and Kessing (1991), Adoretus sinicus is originally from Japan and Taiwan, but as a result of introductions it has a widespread distribution throughout much of Southeast Asia and many Pacific Islands (Mau and Kessing, 1991). According to Pemberton (1964), citing Ohaus (1912), before its identification in Hawaii it was known from China, Java and Formosa [Taiwan]. It has also been reported from Kolhapur District, India (Bhawane et al., 2012), and from stored shipping containers in Queensland, Australia (Stanaway et al., 2001).

Distribution Table

The distribution in this summary table is based on all the information available. When several references are cited, they may give conflicting information on the status. Further details may be available for individual references in the Distribution Table Details section which can be selected by going to Generate Report.

North America

Oceania

History of Introduction and Spread

A. sinicus probably came to Hawaii as larvae in soil with imported plants from China, Taiwan, Java and Timor (Ohaus, 1935 Pemberton, 1964). It was first reported on Oahu in 1891 (Riley and Howard, 1893 Jackson and Klein, 2006).  By 1898 it was established on all the major Hawaiian islands (Koebele, 1898).  In 1917 it was recognized as one of the worst garden pests of Hawaii (Muir, 1917). It was introduced to Guam by 1949 (Pemberton, 1954).

Introductions

Introduced toIntroduced fromYearReasonIntroduced byEstablished in wild throughReferencesNotes
Natural reproductionContinuous restocking
Guam Hawaii 1949 Yes No Pemberton (1954)
Hawaii before 1896 Yes No Mau and Kessing (1991)

Risk of Introduction

A. sinicus is of biosecurity concern (as are some other members of the genus) due to its broad host range, its ease of transport with cultivated plants in soil or roots, the severe damage it can cause, and its history of establishment in numerous regions (McQuate and Jameson, 2011b). Its presence in shipping containers in Australia (Stanaway et al., 2001) indicates another possible means of transport. Gregory et al. (2005), in a project at a port in New Jersey, identified it as a potential invader that might arrive in agricultural produce. It is considered to have moderate potential for invasive risk in the mainland USA (McQuate and Jameson, 2011b).

Habitat List

CategorySub-CategoryHabitatPresenceStatus
Terrestrial ManagedCultivated / agricultural land Principal habitat Harmful (pest or invasive)
Terrestrial ManagedManaged forests, plantations and orchards Principal habitat Harmful (pest or invasive)
Terrestrial ManagedUrban / peri-urban areas Principal habitat Harmful (pest or invasive)
Terrestrial Natural / Semi-naturalNatural forests Principal habitat Harmful (pest or invasive)
Littoral Coastal areas Present, no further details Harmful (pest or invasive)

Hosts/Species Affected

Maki (1916) reported A. sinicus as one of the injurious insects of the mulberry tree (Morus) in Taiwan.  In 1924, Pope (1925) found A. sinicus “(tenuimaculatus, Japanese beetle)” to be the only serious pest of grapes in Hawaii feeding on the foliage.

McQuate and Jameson (2011b) reviewed the plant hosts of adult A. sinicus.  They reported that the species feeds on over 250 species and approximately 56 families of plants according to Habeck (1964), or on over 500 plant species according to Hession et al. (1994). They state, citing Mau and Kessing (1991), Arita et al. (1993) and Zee et al. (2003), that “Host plants include many economically important (crop) plants such as broccoli (Brassica oleracea var. italica Plenck), cabbage (Brassica oleracea var. capitata L.), cacao (Theobroma cacao L.), Chinese broccoli (Brassica oleracea L. var. alboglabra), Chinese cabbage (Brassica rapa L. subsp. chinensis [L.] Hanelt [or Brassica chinensis]), chiso (Perilla frutescens [L.] Britton), corn (Zea mays L.), cotton (Gossypium barbadense L.), cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.), eggplant (Solanum melongena L.), ginger (Zingiber officinale Roscoe), grape (Vitis labrusca Bailey), green beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), jack fruit (Artocarpus heterophyllus Lam.), okra (Hibiscus esculentus L. [Abelmoschus esculentus]), peanuts (Arachis hypogaea L.), Oriental persimmon (Diospyros kaki Thunb.), raspberry (Rubus niveus Thunb.), roses (Rosa spp.), salak palm (Salacca zalacca Gaerther), soybean (Glycine max L.), star fruit (Averrhoa carambola L.), strawberry (Fragaria chiloensis [L.] Duch.), sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas [L.]), taro (Colocasia esculenta [L.] Schott) and tea (Camellia sinensis L.)”.

Host Plants and Other Plants Affected

  • McQuate and Jameson (2011)
  • McQuate and Jameson (2011)
  • McQuate and Jameson (2011)
  • McQuate and Jameson (2011)

    Symptoms

    A. sinicus adult nocturnal feeding on crops and plant foliage causes a lace-like or shot hole appearance on leaves (Mau and Kessing, 1991) the morphology of the mouthparts results in paired holes with a narrow strip of intact leaf between them (McQuate and Jameson, 2011b, citing Arrow, 1917). In severe cases most leaves are “skeletonized” (Mau and Kessing, 1991), leaving just the veins.

    List of Symptoms/Signs

    SignLife StagesType
    Growing point / external feeding
    Growing point / lesions
    Inflorescence / external feeding
    Leaves / external feeding
    Leaves / necrotic areas
    Leaves / shredding
    Whole plant / external feeding

    Biology and Ecology

    Molecular tools are being developed to aid in the identification of adults and larvae of the Adoretini (McQuate and Jameson, 2011b).  DNA in larval-adult species associations within scarab beetle communities from Nepal has been examined.  Larval specimens were associated 86.1% and 92.7% of the time with 19 known adult species based on about 1600 base pairs of mitochondrial COX1 and RRNL, and 700 base pairs of nuclear 28S rRNA. Nine morphotypes in the sample were members of the genus Adoretus, but only two morphotypes could be identified to species (McQuate and Jameson, 2011b, citing Ahrens et al., 2007).

    Reproductive Biology

    Temperature and substrate quality determine the rate of development from egg to adult.  In the laboratory this takes approximately 15 weeks (Habeck, 1964), while in the field it can be completed in 6-7 weeks (Mau and Kessing, 1991).

    Mating begins 30 minutes after sunset (Tsutsumi et al., 1993). Egg clutch size averages 54 eggs. The eggs are laid in the soil within 1.25 to 2.5 cm (Mau and Kessing, 1991) or 4 cm (Habeck, 1964) of the surface. Temperatures of 24.0° C and 28.6° C yield periods of egg development of 12-16 days and 7-13 days, respectively (Habeck, 1964).

    A. sinicus has three larval instars.  The first instar lasts 19.6-22.8 days, the second instar lasts 14.5-16.8 days, and the third instar lasts 34.3-44.4 days (Habeck, 1964) according to Mau and Kessing (1991), the larval stage lasts 3-4 weeks in total. Larvae live in rich soil, leaf litter, decaying vegetation, or compost (Mau and Kessing, 1991).

    The pupal stage lasts 11-17 days, an average of 14 days (Habeck, 1964).

    In the laboratory, field-collected adults live 8 weeks (Habeck, 1964).

    Activity Patterns

    Adult A. sinicus are nocturnal.  During daylight hours they hide under leaves or tree bark or in the soil they emerge at dusk to feed (Williams, 1931). Thirty minutes after sunset, peak mating and feeding activity occur (Tsutsumi et al., 1993). McQuate (2013), studying A. sinicus activity patterns in the light of the recent demonstration that illumination of plants at dusk has the potential to discourage feeding by adults, found that initiation of beetle colonization of plants occurred on average more than 21 minutes after sunset. Attraction to light at night seems to be considerably less in Adoretus spp. than in other scarab beetle species (G.T. McQuate, Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center, Hilo, Hawaii, USA, personal communication, 2013).

    Nutrition

    Larvae live in rich soil, leaf litter, decaying vegetation, or compost (Mau and Kessing, 1991), and feed on humus and detritus rather than living plant tissue according to Williams (1931) on the other hand Bhawane et al. (2012) say that they feed on seedlings.

    Adults feed on plant foliage of a wide range of species at night, beginning at dusk (Ebesu, 2003).  They create a lace-like appearance by eating between leaf veins.  In severe cases most leaves are “skeletonized” (Mau and Kessing, 1991).

    Smith et al. (2009) state that “within Hawaii, A. sinicus feeds on over 500 plant species including major crops such as taro, corn and beans ([Arita-] Tsutsumi et al., 1994 ). As adults, A. sinicus beetles are nocturnal feeders and are attracted to ethylene gas released by damaged leaves (Arita et al., 1988 Mau and Kessing, 2002 [1991])”.

    Adults prefer leaves and plant species that are high in non-structural carbohydrates (Arita et al., 1993).  They prefer leaves that have been chewed (Pemberton, 1959). High carbohydrate content in snap bean leaves stimulates A. sinicus feeding (Furutani et al., 1993). In paired comparisons between the cultivars Hawaiian Wonder and Green Crop, and Kentucky Wonder and Blue Lake Bush 274 grown in the same environmental conditions, the cultivar of each pair with the greatest carbohydrate concentration was fed on the most.

    Tsutsumi et al. (1993) showed that A. sinicus prefers recently matured leaves in the uppermost part of the plant, whereas A. versutus prefers younger leaves in the lower part.

    Environmental Requirements

    Temperature and substrate quality determine the rate of development from egg to adult.  In the laboratory this takes approximately 15 weeks (Habeck, 1964), while in the field it can be completed in 6-7 weeks (Mau and Kessing, 1991).  Further research is needed to determine the habitat requirements of A. sinicus as they relate to IPM measures, in order to be able to implement more effective control programs. Soil moisture is an environmental requirement for egg development.  The optimal combination of air temperature and relative humidity for each of the life stadia is not known.  Ehehorn (1915) stated that in the summer of 1914 A. tenuimaculatus, the Japanese rose beetle, had been very abundant in the absence of a fungus that kept it in check -- the severe dry weather prevented the growth of the fungus.  This species was later correctly classified as A. sinicus (Muir, 1920).

    Climate

    ClimateStatusDescriptionRemark
    Af - Tropical rainforest climate Preferred > 60mm precipitation per month
    Am - Tropical monsoon climate Preferred Tropical monsoon climate ( < 60mm precipitation driest month but > (100 - [total annual precipitation(mm>/25]))
    C - Temperate/Mesothermal climate Preferred Average temp. of coldest month > 0°C and < 18°C, mean warmest month > 10°C

    Natural enemies

    Natural enemyTypeLife stagesSpecificityReferencesBiological control inBiological control on
    Beauveria bassiana Pathogen Adults not specific Hawaii Many plant crop and tree species
    Campsomeris marginella modesta Predator/parasite Adults not specific Guam, Hawaii Many plant crop and tree species
    Hamaxia incongrua Predator/parasite Hawaii ornamental plants
    Metarhizium anisopliae Pathogen Adults/Larvae not specific
    Ocromeigenia ormioides Predator/parasite Adults not specific Hawaii Many plant crop and tree species
    Tiphia ashmeadi Predator/parasite Hawaii
    Tiphia lucida Predator/parasite Adults not specific Hawaii Many plant crop and tree species
    Tiphia segregata Predator/parasite Adults not specific Hawaii Many plant crop and tree species

    Notes on Natural Enemies

    In Hawaii, several species of natural enemies of A. sinicus were introduced as biological control agents against this or other species, without significantly controlling A. sinicus (Mau and Kessing, 1991 Pemberton, 1964). Campsomeris marginella modesta Smith (Hymenoptera: Scoliidae) and Tiphia segregata Crawford (Hymenoptera: Tiphiidae) were introduced from the Philippines into Hawaii to control A. sinicus and another invasive Rutelinae scarab beetle Anomala orientalis [Blitopertha orientalis] (Muir, 1917, 1919), and 'materially checked' A. sinicus without controlling it fully (Pemberton, 1954).  Tiphia lucida Crawford in Adoretus from the Philippines also failed to control A. sinicus in Hawaii (Pemberton, 1964).  Other natural enemies include frogs and toads, and the fungi Beauveria bassiana and green muscardine fungus (Metarhizium anisopliae) (Fang et al., 1985), and also the tachinid Ocromeigenia ormioides, a scoliid (Tiphia sp.) and a carabid predator, which were introduced to Hawaii from Formosa (now Taiwan) in 1925-6 (Fullaway, 1927).

    Means of Movement and Dispersal

    Natural Dispersal (Non-Biotic)

    Dispersal of A. sinicus by strong winds during flight needs more research.  Perhaps this data could be used to monitor the beetles from coastal areas, over the ocean and to the place that they get blown to, especially after a tropical cyclone or typhoon.

    Accidental Introduction

    A. sinicus eggs and larvae may be easily transported with cultivated plants in soil or roots (Ohaus, 1935) as a result, the species is of biosecurity concern (McQuate and Jameson, 2011b).

    Pathway Causes

    Pathway Vectors

    VectorNotesLong DistanceLocalReferences
    Containers and packaging - non-woodAdults Yes Stanaway et al. (2001)
    Soil, sand and gravelEggs, larvae or adults in soil of potted plants Yes McQuate and Jameson (2011b)

    Plant Trade

    Plant parts liable to carry the pest in trade/transportPest stagesBorne internallyBorne externallyVisibility of pest or symptoms
    Growing medium accompanying plants adults eggs larvae Yes Yes Pest or symptoms usually visible to the naked eye
    Leaves adults Yes Pest or symptoms usually visible to the naked eye
    Roots eggs larvae Yes Pest or symptoms usually visible to the naked eye

    Impact Summary

    CategoryImpact
    Cultural/amenity Negative
    Economic/livelihood Negative
    Environment (generally) Negative

    Economic Impact

    A. sinicus feeds on many economically important crop plants for more information see the ‘Hosts/Species Affected’ section’. Examples of reports of its effects include the following:

    Smith et al. (2009) considered that cacao growing had the potential to become economically significant in Hawaii, but that A. sinicus could, in view of the damage it causes to other common Hawaiian crops, be an important determinant of cacao production there.

    Hummer et al. (2007) reported that A. sinicus, together with the thrips Heliothrips haemorrhoidalis, caused some foliar damage to blueberry plants on the Island of Hawaii.

    Observations made in central Taiwan in 1979-80 on arthropod pests of roses showed that A. sinicus was one of the 10 most important species (Wang, 1982).

    In China, A. sinicus was reported by Fang et al. (1985) to be an important pest of several plant species such as tallow trees [Ximenia?], Liquidambar taiwaniana, white poplar and hickory trees [Carya].

    Berrya cordifolia was repeatedly attacked during a 5-year study in Lualualei, Oahu Island, Hawaii, of trees considered to have potential for forestry in Hawaii (Whitesell and Walters, 1976).

    On the other hand, in studies conducted on Kauai, Hawaii, to identify potential arthropod vectors of maize chlorotic mottle virus, A. sinicus was not found to transmit the virus (of six arthropod species found in MCMV-infected maize fields and tested for their transmission capability, only the thrips Frankliniella williamsi was found to transmit the virus) (Jiang et al., 1992).

    Environmental Impact

    Impact on Biodiversity

    A. sinicus is a generalist polyphagous non-specific pest of plant species including crops, ornamentals and forest trees. It feeds on over 250 species and approximately 56 families of plants according to Habeck (1964), or on over 500 plant species according to Hession et al. (1994).  Species that have not coevolved with A. sinicus are likely to be impacted. In Hawaii (Oahu), threats to the endangered tree Colubrina oppositifolia include A. sinicus (as well as other insect pests, invasive plants and others) ( US Fish and Wildlife Service 1994 , 2002 Baskin et al., 2007). Also in Hawaii, Howarth (1985) reported that certain native plants were especially attractive to A. sinicus and were jeopardized by it, for example the proposed endangered species Hibiscadelphus distans and Abutilon menziesii.

    Threatened Species

    Threatened SpeciesConservation StatusWhere ThreatenedMechanismReferencesNotes
    Abutilon menziesiiCR (IUCN red list: Critically endangered)HawaiiHerbivory/grazing/browsingHowarth (1985)
    Colubrina oppositifoliaCR (IUCN red list: Critically endangered)HawaiiHerbivory/grazing/browsingMeyer (1997)
    Hibiscadelphus distansCR (IUCN red list: Critically endangered)HawaiiHerbivory/grazing/browsingHowarth (1985)
    Plantago princepsNatureServe USA ESA listing as endangered speciesHawaiiPest and disease transmissionUS Fish and Wildlife Service (2010)

    Risk and Impact Factors

    • Proved invasive outside its native range
    • Has a broad native range
    • Abundant in its native range
    • Tolerant of shade
    • Capable of securing and ingesting a wide range of food
    • Highly mobile locally
    • Benefits from human association (i.e. it is a human commensal)
    • Fast growing
    • Has high reproductive potential
    • Gregarious
    • Altered trophic level
    • Damaged ecosystem services
    • Ecosystem change/ habitat alteration
    • Host damage
    • Increases vulnerability to invasions
    • Negatively impacts agriculture
    • Negatively impacts cultural/traditional practices
    • Negatively impacts forestry
    • Threat to/ loss of endangered species
    • Threat to/ loss of native species
    • Negatively impacts trade/international relations
    • Pest and disease transmission
    • Herbivory/grazing/browsing
    • Rapid growth
    • Highly likely to be transported internationally accidentally
    • Highly likely to be transported internationally illegally
    • Difficult/costly to control

    Environmental Services

    Potentially invasive plant species can be kept under control by herbivorous insects from their native range this seems to be the case for the Chinese tallow tree Sapium sebiferum (or Triadica sebifera) in Hawaii where A. sinicus is abundant, in contrast to the southern USA where A. sinicus is not present and S. sebiferum is invasive (Siemann and Rogers, 2003). Adoretus sinicus is a natural enemy of the white mulberry Morus alba which is also invasive in parts of the USA (Zheng et al., 2006). Meyer (1997) notes that leaves of the invasive tree Miconia calvescens in the Pacific islands are often extensively destroyed by A. sinicus, but that the impact of A. sinicus on this species has not been evaluated.

    Despite the effect of A. sinicus on some invasive species, the fact that it is an important and non-specific pest presumably makes it unlikely to be introduced anywhere as a biological control agent.

    Similarities to Other Species/Conditions

    Adults of species in the genus Adoretus are similar externally in particular A. sinicus is sometimes confused with A. tenuimaculatus (McQuate and Jameson, 2011b).

    McQuate and Jameson (2011b) compared the two species stating, “In males of A. tenuimaculatus, the fifth protarsomere is slightly thickened and armed with an internomedial tooth, whereas in females the fifth protarsomere is gracile and only slightly developed internomedially. This character was not useful, however, in separating males and females of A. sinicus.

    Prevention and Control

    Due to the variable regulations around (de)registration of pesticides, your national list of registered pesticides or relevant authority should be consulted to determine which products are legally allowed for use in your country when considering chemical control. Pesticides should always be used in a lawful manner, consistent with the product's label.

    The utilization of pesticides, parasitoids, entomopathogens and attractant pheromones has been ineffective in Hawaii (Beardsley, 1993).

    Cultural Control and Sanitary Measures

    Turning the soil of planted fields might destroy eggs and larvae.

    Physical/Mechanical Control

    Night-time illumination can be used as a means of reducing A. sinicus population size and defoliation of host plants (McQuate and Jameson, 2011a Shimabukuro and Tsutsumi, 2008). Use of lighting to discourage colonization and associated defoliation should be initiated at sunset (McQuate, 2013). Other methods proposed for control include tilling soil (both active and dormant beetles are concentrated in the surface soil), nursery irrigation (Fang et al., 1985), and collecting adult beetles by hand at night and putting them in a soapy water solution (G.T. McQuate, Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center, Hilo, Hawaii, USA, personal communication, 2013).

    Movement Control

    The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) possess the authority to carry out the mission of protecting American agriculture from plant pests.  The Plant Protection Act of 2000 (PPA) provides the authority to prohibit or restrict imports, exports, or biological control agents, and means of conveyance.  The US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and PPQ are the regulatory agencies provided with the authority to take regulatory action and enforce restrictions and prohibitions under the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs). Legislation lists A. sinicus as a pest of concern, and restricts and prohibits the movement of fresh fruits, vegetables, cactus, cut flowers, mango seed, and rice straw from Hawaii to the continental United States, Guam, Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin Islands, and of fresh fruits and vegetables, cotton and cotton covers, sugarcane, cereals, cut flowers, and packing materials from Guam to the United States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands (USDA-APHIS-PPQ, 2012).

    Biological Control

    The green muscardine fungus, Metarhizium anisopliae has been observed to destroy grubs and adults particularly during the wet season (Williams, 1931 Koebele, 1897). M. anisopliae var. majus (Metschnikov) Sorokin [Metarhizium majus] and Beauveria brongniartii (Saccardo) Petch are entomopathogenic fungi that have been tested on larvae of A. sinicus (Koebele, 1897 Williams, 1931 Tsutsumi et al., 1993 Jackson and Klein, 2006). Fang et al. (1985) reported the use of B. bassiana and M. anisopliae.

    Entomopathogenic nematodes belonging to the families Steinernematidae and Heterorhabditidae could potentially be utilized to control A. sinicus larvae and adults, and thus minimize chemical control with pesticides (McQuate and Jameson, 2011b).  Hara et al. (1989) tested the nematodes Steinernema carpocapsae (Weiser) and Heterorhabditis sp. MB7 (Maui isolate) on adults and found them to be ineffective.  Tests on larvae also found these nematodes to be ineffective (Tsutsumi et al., 1993).

    In Hawaii, several insect natural enemies of A. sinicus were introduced as biological control agents against this or other species, without significantly controlling A. sinicus (Mau and Kessing, 1991 Pemberton, 1964). Campsomeris marginella modesta Smith (Hymenoptera: Scoliidae) and Tiphia segregata Crawford (Hymenoptera: Tiphiidae) were introduced from the Philippines into Hawaii to control A. sinicus and another invasive Rutelinae scarab beetle, Anomala orientalis [Blitopertha orientalis] (Muir, 1917, 1919), and 'materially checked' A. sinicus without controlling it fully (Pemberton, 1954). Tiphia lucida Crawford in Adoretus from the Philippines also failed to control A. sinicus in Hawaii (Pemberton, 1964).  The tachinid Ocromeigenia ormioides, a scoliid (Tiphia sp.) and a carabid predator were also introduced to Hawaii from Formosa (now Taiwan) in 1925-6 (Fullaway, 1927).

    Gilmartin (2005) argues that parasitoids should not be used for biological control in Hawaii because of the potential severe effects on non-target species and the risk of introducing exotic parasitoids.

    Chemical Control

    Suppression of A. sinicus has relied on broad-spectrum organophosphate insecticides (e.g. carbaryl) that often have a negative impact on non-target or beneficial insects (Arita-Tsutsumi et al., 1994 Tsutsumi et al., 1993). An azadirachtin-based antifeedant pesticide and imidicloprid-based systemic pesticides have been tested and found to help in the control of A. sinicus (Arita-Tsutsumi et al., 1995).  Fang et al. (1985) reported chemical control using trichlorfon or cyanthoate.

    Gilmartin (2005) argues that broad-spectrum insecticides should not be used for pest control in Hawaii because of the potential severe effects on non-target species.

    Repellents and Attractants

    Although leaf volatiles have been identified as scarab attractants they are not known as lures because of their volatility.  This makes their application difficult (Leal, 1998).

    Hession et al. (1994) proposed the probable existence of a pheromone sex attractant in A. sinicus, which could be used to disrupt mating behaviour.  Synthetic attractants have been developed for A. tessulatus in Australia (Donaldson et al., 1986).

    Host Resistance

    Lin (1981) carried out field studies in Hawaii in 1976-78 on the resistance of various types of bean crops to arthropod pests. The cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) variety IVU-37 was highly resistant to adults of A. sinicus.  There was a significant negative correlation between leaf toughness and percentage damage by the beetle. Mung-bean (Vigna radiata) varieties that exhibited moderate resistance to other arthropods (Ophiomyia phaseoli and Liriomyza sp.) had relatively high levels of pubescence and antifeedant and low levels of attractant, and the resistance mechanism was thought to be antixenosis.

    Monitoring and Surveillance

    A. sinicus appears under the category “General Insects” Code 10004 in Appendix E (revised 7/29/2010) of the Aerial Survey Geographic Information System (GIS) Handbook of the USDA Forest Service (USDA Forest Service, 2010), although it has the potential to cause severe damage to plant species including trees.

    Gaps in Knowledge/Research Needs

    The status of A. sinicus as an invasive defoliator species should be given more attention in order to determine its ecological role and benefits as a biotic regulating factor in its wide geographic range.  It should be monitored in the long term to better understand the environmental factors that trigger its outbreaks and thus allow managers to put preventative measures into effect ahead of an invasion.

    The impact on biodiversity is a broad aspect that should receive more consideration in order to learn how the species alters ecosystems’ nutrient cycles, food and nest supplies, and species composition (both animal and plant).

    Another important aspect is the determination of an index of invasiveness based on the similarity of the native habitat of the species to habitats abroad that could potentially be invaded.  International cooperative agreements should be sought between Asian countries and Pacific and Western Hemisphere countries to establish comparative research studies on the habitat requirements of A. sinicus.

    Invasiveness concerns make improved taxonomic knowledge of the Adoretus group essential. Additional research in systematics (e.g., molecular phylogenetics and DNA sequencing of an individual species to identify it and tag a taxonomic name to a morphological character) is needed within the genus Adoretus given that it is a group that includes many economically important species.  This novel approach would yield the knowledge for the identification of field samples without the need to analyze DNA from them.  Justified by the scarce workforce of taxonomists in this group, larval and adult identification of A. sinicus and its taxonomic relatives should be broadened (ML Jameson, Department of Biological Sciences, Wichita State University, Wichita, Kansas, USA, personal communication, 2013).

    The non-destructive method of sex determination in A. sinicus reported by McQuate and Jameson (2011b) will be instrumental in research aimed at developing improved integrated pest management systems, sex-dependent detection, and monitoring and control methods that make use of pheromones, mating, or reproductive parameters. These tools are of critical importance for managing existing populations as well as future invasions.

    Although research in pursuit of an effective attractant has been elusive, there is still a need to discover or develop an attractant to be used in combination with light.  Evidence on the response to light by A. sinicus is conflicting because data has shown attraction and repulsion to light further research is needed to solve this conflict (GT McQuate, USDA-ARS, U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center, Hilo, Hawaii, USA, personal communication, 2013).

    Ecological research that is needed includes: 1) climatologic data to correlate A. sinicus abundance to moisture and temperature (e.g. to estimate survival rate in drier soil) 2) biotic (e.g. plant host resistance to the insect) and abiotic (e.g. microclimatic) factors affecting its life cycle, 3) better quantification of the relationship between light intensity and feeding 4) dispersal pathways other than commerce of potted ornamentals (e.g. wind and oceanic currents) 5) further research on the potential role of natural enemies for different life stages 6) factors (e.g., predation, drought) limiting population dynamics and insect impact (e.g. the effects of A. sinicus on crop productivity and plant species diversity at the community and ecosystem levels) 7) treatment options and potential effects on target and non-target organisms 8) the effectiveness of IPM in different geoclimatic regions and 9) the development of a rapid detection and response protocol including potential control strategies (e.g. biological, microbial and cultural)  to stem an invasion at its onset.

    Further research should include the development of Global Information System (GIS) high-resolution satellite imagery to monitor changes in the vegetation due to scarab beetle feeding as an early detection technique.

    The way a population is affected after total defoliation of plant hosts by adult beetles should be investigated to learn about the dynamics between invasions.  The dispersal and flight range of the newly hatched individuals facing a lack of vegetation to devour would be interesting to observe.  In addition, destruction of habitat during harvest could force displaced insects to invade new regions. Both facts could point to the next area to be invaded by this pest.

    References

    APPPC, 1987. Insect pests of economic significance affecting major crops of the countries in Asia and the Pacific region. Technical Document No. 135. Bangkok, Thailand: Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific region (RAPA)

    Arita-Tsutsumi LH, Furutani SC, Yoshimura ER, 1994. Identification and Control of the Chinese Rose Beetle, Adoretus sinicus Burmeister. Journal of Hawaiian Pacific Agriculture, 5:67-71

    Arita-Tsutsumi LH, Furutani SC, Yoshimura ER, Sakai DT, 1995. Feeding responses of the Chinese rose beetle, Adoretus sinicus Burmeister, to azadirachtin treated host plants. Journal of Hawaiian and Pacific Agriculture, 6:49-54

    Arrow GJ, 1917. The Fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma. Coleoptera. Lamellicornia Part II. (Rutelinae, Desmonychinae, and Euchirinae)., UK: Taylor and Francis

    Baraud J, 1985. Coléoptères Scarabaeoidea, Faune du Nord de l'Afrique du Maroc au Sinaï (Coleoptera, Scarabaeoidea: Fauna of North Africa from Morocco to Sinai). Paris, France: Editions Lechevalier, 652 pp

    Bhawane GP, Mamlayya AB, Wagh SR, Chaugule AK, 2012. Diversity of white grub beetles and their host range from Northern Wesetern Ghats, Kolhapur District (MS) India. The Bioscan, 7(4):589-596

    Ebesu R, 2003. Integrated Pest Management for Home Gardens: Insect Identification and Control. Manoa, Hawaii, USA: University of Hawaii at Manoa Cooperative Extension Service, College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, 11 pp. [IP-13: Insect Pests, July 2003.]

    EPPO, 2014. PQR database. Paris, France: European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. http://www.eppo.int/DATABASES/pqr/pqr.htm

    Furutani SC, Arita-Tsutsumi LH, Hession RO, Yoshimura ER, 1995. Field assessment of Chinese Rose beetle, Adoretus sinicus Burmeister, feeding damage. Journal of Hawaiian and Pacific Agriculture, 6:55-59

    Gilmartin WG, 2005. Workshop to identify research and mitigation measures to address Schistocerca nitens crisis on Nihoa Island, Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Hawaii, USA: Hawaii Wildlife Fund

    Gregory P, Hamilton G, Robson M, 2005. The Role of Cooperative Extension in Homeland Security. American Entomologist, 51:134-137

    Habeck DH, 1963. Description of Immature Stages of the Chinese Rose Beetle, Adoretus sinicus Burmeister (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society, 18(2):251-258. http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/handle/10125/10873/18_251-258.pdf

    Hara AH, Mello CL, Arita LH, Tsutsumi L, Kaya KY, 1989. Laboratory susceptibility of some tropical pest species and a non-target organism to the entomopathogenic nematode, Steinernema carpocapsae. Journal of Hawaiian and Pacific Agriculture, 2:6-9

    Hession RO, Arita LH, Furutani SC, Fukada M, 1994. Field observations on the mating behavior of the Chinese rose beetle, Adoretus sinicus Burmeister (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae), in Hawaii. Journal of Hawaiian and Pacific Agriculture, 5:37-42

    Howarth FG, 1985. Impacts of alien land arthropods and mollusks on native plants and animals in Hawai'i. In: Hawaii's terrestrial ecosystems: Preservation and management [ed. by Stone, C. P. Scott, J. M.]. 149-179. http://www.hear.org/books/hte1985/pdfs/hte1985howarth.pdf

    IRRI, 1984. A Decade of cooperation between Sukamandi (AARD) and IRRI, 1972-1982. Los Baños and Manila, Philippines: International Rice Research Institute, 169 pp

    Koebele A, 1897. Report of the entomologist of the Hawaiian government. Hawaiian Planter's Monthly, XVI (2):67-85

    Koebele A, 1898. Report of the entomologist. In: Report of the Minister of the Interior to the President of the Republic for the biennium ending Dec. 31, 1897, 105-107

    Krajcik M, 2007. Checklist of the Scarabaeoidea of the World. 2. Rutelinae (Coleoptera: Scarabaeiae: Rutelinae). Animma.x, Supplement 4:1-141

    Mau RFL, Kessing JLM, 1991. Adoretus sinicus. Honolulu, Hawaii, USA: University of Hawaii. http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/kbase/crop/Type/adoretus.htm

    McQuate GT, Jameson ML, 2011. Sex determination in the Chinese Rose Beetle, Adoretus sinicus, and overview of Adoretus species of biosecurity concern. Journal of Insect Science, 11(64):1-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1673/031.011.6401

    Meyer JY, 1997. Epidemiology of the invasion by Miconia calvescens and reasons for a spectacular success. (Épidémiologie de l'invasion par Miconia calvescens et raisons d'un succès spectaculaire.) In: Proceedings of the First Regional Conference on Miconia Control, August 26-29, 1997. 4-26

    Muir F, 1917. The introduction of Scolia manila Ashm., into the Hawaiian Islands. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 10(2):202-210

    Ohaus F, 1912. On some Adoretids transported with cultivated plants. (Uber einige mit Kulturpflanzen verschleppte Adoretiden.) Entomologische Blätter, 8:218-227

    Ohaus F, 1935. Checklist of the Rutelinae (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae) of Oceanea. Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Occasional Papers, 11(2):3-9

    Pemberton CE, 1954. Report for 1949-1954, Invertebrates consultant committee for the Pacific. Washington, DC, USA: The Pacific Science Board, National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council

    Pemberton CE, 1959. Report of the rhinocerous beetle technical advisory committee meeting held in Suva, Fiji. February 16-19., New Caledonia: South Pacific Commission, 11

    Pemberton CE, 1964. Highlights in the history of entomology in Hawaii 1778-1963. Pacific Insects, 6(3):689-729

    Péringuey L, 1902. Descriptive catalogue of Coleoptera of South Africa (Lucanidae and Scarabaeidae). Transactions of the South African Philosophical Society, 12:563-624

    Riley CV, Howard LO, 1893. An injurious Hawaiian beetle. Insect Life, 6:43

    Ritcher PO, 1948. Descriptions of the larvae of some ruteline beetles with keys to tribes and species (Scarabaeidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 41:206-212

    Shimabukuro A, Tsutsumi LH, 2008. The Effect of Light Exposure on Chinese Rose Beetle, Adoretus sinicus Burmeister Feeding. Pacific Agriculture and Natural Resources, 15(1):1-6

    Siemann E, Rogers WE, 2003. Increased competitive ability of an invasive tree may be limited by an invasive beetle. Ecological Applications, 13:1503-1507

    Smith GK, Gering E, Guerrero RF, McTavish EJ, Lydgate T, 2009. Theobroma cacao L. (Malvaceae) agroecology in Kauai: a case study. Pacific Agriculture and Natural Resources, 1:21-26

    US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1994. Determination of endangered or threatened status for 21 plants from the Island of Hawaii, state of Hawaii. Federal Register, 59(43):10305-10325

    US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2002. Designations of critical habitat for plant species from the Island of Hawaii, Hawaii. Federal Register, 67(102):36968-37016

    USDA Forest Service, 2010. Appendix E: Damage Causal Agent Codes. In: Aerial survey geographic information system (GIS) handbook: sketchmaps to digital geographic information. USA: USDA Forest Service, 31-70. http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5361666.pdf

    USDA-APHIS, 2000. USDA-APHIS Regulated Plant Pest List. USA: United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 11 pp. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/plant_imports/downloads/RegulatedPestList.pdf

    USDA-APHIS-PPQ, 2012. Cut flowers and greenery import manual. USA: United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 26 pp. [Transmittal number 08/2012 edition 53.] http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/manuals/ports/downloads/cut_flower_imports.pdf

    Wang CL, 1982a. Insect pests and their injury on rose. Journal of Agricultural Research of China, 31(1):97-101

    Williams FX, 1931. Handbook of the Insects and Other Invertebrates of Hawaiian Sugarcane Fields. Honolulu, Hawaii, USA: Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association and Advertiser Publisher Co., 400 pp

    Wolcott GN, 1923. Insectae Portoricensis. A preliminary annotated checklist of the insects of Porto Rico, with descriptions of some new species. Journal of the Department of Agriculture of Porto Rico, 7(1):1-312

    Zee F, Sato D, Keith L, Follett P, Hamasaki RT, 2003. Small-scale tea growing and processing in Hawaii. Manoa, Hawaii, USA: College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, University of Hawaii at Manoa, 14 pp. [New Plants for Hawaii 9.] http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/oc/freepubs/pdf/NPH-9.pdf

    Distribution References

    APPPC, 1987. Insect pests of economic significance affecting major crops of the countries in Asia and the Pacific region. In: Technical Document No. 135, Bangkok, Thailand: Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific region (RAPA).

    Bhawane GP, Mamlayya AB, Wagh SR, Chaugule AK, 2012. Diversity of white grub beetles and their host range from Northern Wesetern Ghats, Kolhapur District (MS) India. In: The Bioscan, 7 (4) 589-596.

    CABI, Undated. Compendium record. Wallingford, UK: CABI

    CABI, Undated a. CABI Compendium: Status inferred from regional distribution. Wallingford, UK: CABI

    CABI, Undated b. CABI Compendium: Status as determined by CABI editor. Wallingford, UK: CABI

    EPPO, 2014. EPPO Global database (available online). Paris, France: EPPO. https://gd.eppo.int/

    IRRI, 1984. A Decade of cooperation between Sukamandi (AARD) and IRRI, 1972-1982., Los Baños Manila, Philippines: International Rice Research Institute. 169 pp.

    Mau RFL, Kessing JLM, 1991. (Adoretus sinicus)., Honolulu, Hawaii, USA: University of Hawaii. http://www.extento.hawaii.edu/kbase/crop/Type/adoretus.htm

    Pemberton CE, 1954. Report for 1949-1954, Invertebrates consultant committee for the Pacific., Washington, DC, USA: The Pacific Science Board, National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council.


    The Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites Richard Stillwell, William L. MacDonald, Marian Holland McAllister, Stillwell, Richard, MacDonald, William L., McAlister, Marian Holland, Ed.

    Hide browse bar Your current position in the text is marked in blue. Click anywhere in the line to jump to another position:

    This text is part of:
    View text chunked by:
    Table of Contents:

    SIRMIUM (Sremska Mitrovica) Yugoslavia.

    Sirmium was the residence of the governor of Lower Pannonia and later was the capital of Illyricum. An important mint was founded here by Constantine I. The city was an ecclesiastical center and several church councils were convened here during the 4th c. The Huns destroyed the city in the mid 5th c. but it was restored to the Byzantine empire in the mid 6th c. Sirmium fell to the Avars after a long siege in 582.

    Excavations have revealed a number of ancient monuments and have considerably expanded our knowledge of the ancient city. Among the more recent discoveries are a part of the imperial palace (4th c.) and the hippodrome attached to it. The hippodrome, between 350 and 400 m in length, was built shortly after 315 and, after one major rebuilding, fell into disuse before the end of the century. Parts of the foundations for the seats, a cryptoporticus, the spina, and the raceway have been found.

    Sections of the city wall and two large cemeteries have been cleared. Near the center of the city the public horreum (4th c.), a large, rectangular structure with square piers, and part of the baths of Licinius have been excavated.

    Artifacts from recent excavations are in the Museum of Sremska Mitrovica some earlier finds, including a mosaic of the late Roman period, are in the Vojvodina Museum in Novi Sad. The Sremska Museum is built above a large private dwelling (4th-5th c.) and a mosaic with geometric patterns is preserved in situ within the museum courtyard. Frescos from the same dwelling have been restored and are displayed nearby along with a Roman ship, numerous inscriptions, and architectural pieces.

    BIBLIOGRAPHY

    Christian inscriptions II deals with various aspects of the new excavations. J. WISEMAN

    The National Endowment for the Humanities provided support for entering this text.


    Wiki Culturama

    Inscrições indicam que Hamaxia só alcançou um status de cidade no começo do terceiro século A.C.. Mesmo as poucas peças de literatura que temos que mencionar Hamaxia aparecem confusos. Estrabão diz que a cidade está localizada a leste de Alanya enquanto Stadiasmus diz que encontra-se a oeste.
    Hamaxia está situado em uma colina alta, que agora está coberta pesadamente. A arqueologia que permanece inclui cantaria das paredes, que é preservada em grande parte e alguns restos do interior de templos, de Hermes, o outro desconhecido. Dois exedras tem sido localizados de frente para um outro e as inscrições são numerosos. As inscrições detalham sobre nomes, principalmente de natureza epicóricas e alguns com nomes próprios romanos. De acordo com Estrabão havia também um porto na costa nas proximidades de onde a madeira para a construção naval foi trazida, mas esta porta ainda está para ser encontrado se ele existir.

    Tradução autorizada pelo site: Ancient History Encyclopedia sob a seguinte licença: Creative Commons: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported.. CC-BY-NC-SA license


    Cilicia

    Fortress above Antiochia ad Cragum

    Only eleven days until travel and digging resumes for the 2013 season. This year we will be working on the agora it seems, shop complex and mosaic so you are bound to see lots of photos and interesting reports from this years season. So here is some background information on this amazing site where we will be digging and translating.

    Excavations are currently being undertaken by the Antiochia ad Cragum Archaeological Research Project headed by the University of Nebraska-Lincoln in the area of Rough Cilicia in modern Turkey.[1] The excavation site of Antiochia ad Cragum (Αντιόχεια Κράγου) is located about 8 miles to the East of the modern town of Gazipaşa, in the area of the village of Guney. Over the centuries, Antiochia ad Cragum has also been known by the names of Antiochetta and Antiochia Parva which basically translates to ‘little Antiochia’. The additional name ‘ad Cragum’ comes from the site’s position on the steep cliffs (Cragum) overlooking the Mediterranean coast in Southern Anatolia. The site covers an area of around three hectares and contains the remains of baths, market places, colonnaded streets with a gateway, an early Christian basilica, monumental tombs, a temple, and several unidentified buildings. The city itself was built on the sloping ground that comes down from the Taurus Mountain range which terminates at the shore creating steep cliffs in some places several hundred metres high. The temple complex is situated on the highest point of the city and most of the building material remains though in a collapsed state. There is also evidence of a gymnasium complex nearby.

    The harbour at Antiochia ad Cragum measures about 250,000m squared and is one of the few large, safe harbours along the coast East of Alanya.[2] On its Eastern side are two small coves suitable for one or two ships but with limited opportunity for shipping and fishing due to wave activities. The area is well situated as a defensible position against invaders. Recent terrestrial survey at Antiochia ad Cragum has had emphasis on finding evidence of pirate activity which has been limited, but it has turned up pottery principally from the Byzantine Period with additional pottery from the late Bronze Age, Hellenistic and Roman Periods.[3] Thirty stone weights and anchors have been uncovered, alongside lead stocks from wooden anchors and almost twenty iron anchors representing the early Roman through Ottoman periods.[4] There is little evidence of pre-Roman occupation at the fortress or pirate’s cove at Antiochia ad Cragum. Banana terracing may have caused much of the evidence to have been erased. The maritime survey has turned up shipping jars, transport amphoraes and anchors from the Byzantine, Roman and Hellenistic periods as well as a range of miscellaneous items. It is not possible to date the stone weights and anchors at present, but further research may assist in their analysis.[5] Many of them are small and likely to represent local fishing activities over a long period of time. The assemblage appears to indicate early activity to the West of the harbor moving East over time.[6] Access to the site these days is through the Guney village grave yard and past the old school house which is now used as the excavation’s artefact and equipment house.

    The city of Antiochia ad Cragum was officially founded by Antiochis IV around 170 BC when he came to rule over Rough Cilicia. The site and its harbor likely served as one of the many havens for Cilician pirates along the South Anatolian coast, this is because of its small coves and hidden inlets. Unfortunately no definite pirate related artefacts or buildings are visible in the modern day. Antiochia ad Cragum’s pirate past ended with Pompey’s victory in the first century BC and the takeover of Antiochia IV. Initial occupation appears to have occurred in the Classical and Hellenistic periods, followed by a surge of activity in the Roman periods.[7] The area of Antiochia ad Cragum is also neighboured by a citadel on the Western peninsula which was built by Armenian princes and a well-preserved necropolis on the South-Eastern peninsula.

    Pompey ended the pirate menace in 67 AD with a naval victory at nearby Korakesion, modern day Alanya. The emperor Gaius gave control of Rough Cilicia after this episode to the client king of Rome, Antiochis IV of Commagene around AD 38 and later in 41 AD under Claudius. After Pompey’s victory he founded and named Antiochia after himself but was removed by Vespasian in 72 AD. With this later change of control, Antiochia ad Cragum and the rest of Rough Cilicia fell under direct Roman rule as part of the enlarged Roman province of Cilicia. The numismatic evidence left at the site shows that there was a working mint at Antiochia for several centuries after the Roman takeover. One coin dates from 139-161 AD and reads of Marcus Aurelius as Caesar on the obverse with a nude male god holding a long sceptre and a mantle over his shoulder.[8] Other coins from Antiochia ad Cragum date from the mid-third century AD, with examples detailing Philip I and Trajan Decius.[9]

    History of Excavations

    The Antiochia ad Cragum Archaeological Research Project (ACARP) was founded by Professor Michael Hoff from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, and Rhys Townsend from Clark University in 2005. ACARP started off as a facet of the regional survey, the Rough Cilicia Archaeological Survey Project (RCASP) which ran under the field direction of Nicholas Rauh of Purdue University. The aim of RCASP was to document and record the physical remains of the major cities and minor sites within the survey zone, this zone included the site of Antiochia ad Cragum. The members of the RCASP research team have already prepared and published a number of publications detailing the progress of the survey.

    In the summer of 2005 Hoff and Townsend formed the separate project at Antiochia ad Cragum with the collaboration of architectural engineer Ece Erdoğmuş who is also from the University of Nebraska.[10] Originally the project at Antiochia ad Cragum began operating under the aegis of the local archaeological museum in Alanya. But in 2008 it was granted a full excavation permit by the Archaeological Directorate of the Turkish Ministry of Culture. Professor Hoff is a professor of Art History in the Department of Art and Art History at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln where he has been since 1989. Hoff specializes in Greek and Roman archaeology. Townsend is a lecturer with the Department of Visual and Performing Arts in the Art History Program at Clark University.[11]

    The Antiochia ad Cragum Archaeological Research Project has several goals which will hopefully be achieved in the next few years. The project will be pioneering in architectural and archaeological studies in Rough Cilicia. The main goal is the restoration of the temple to a sufficient point. The temple reconstruction is a huge work in progress as currently the project does not know how much of the architecture can be reused. This will not be determined until the marble blocked have been removed to the adjacent block fields, cleaned and repaired. After this has been achieved and the podium of the temple has been completely revealed and assessed, then the extent of the restoration can be determined and a full and detailed plan for restoration can be submitted to the Preservation Board of Historical Buildings in Antalya. This plan and its subsequent approval will be needed before final submission to the Ministry of Culture in Ankara for actual permission to carry out restoration.

    The goals for the temple are shared by the local governmental authorities and the Ministry of Culture in a collaboration involving archaeologists, engineers, authorities and preservation officials. There is also a huge collaboration with the local villagers who reap many of the benefits of the excavations. They receive short-term employment opportunities as workers and guards on site and also long-term economic gain and education from the project. The site foreman who looks after the site year round is also a prominent member of the local community in the village of Guney and banana grower.

    The first full season of digging at Antiochia ad Cragum began in 2005 and began by documenting the temple’s remains by surveying every block in situ with a total station. Two-hundred and seventy blocks were recorded which will be used to create an accurate plan of the blocks and their find spots. This allowed the researchers to determine the basic structure of the temple and some of the decoration and moulding that originally were associated into the structure. At this point, the dedicatee of the temple was unknown but bust remains suggest possibly Apollo or an Imperial personage. The 2005 season hypothesized that the temple belonged to the first half of the third century AD.[12]

    The 2007 and 2008 seasons of the excavation saw a total of four-hundred and ten blocks catalogued, almost 50% of the material of the collapsed structure.[13] In 2008, the excavation team used Ground Penetrating Radar to survey for underground features. This first focused on the block field to make sure they were free of anomalies. The GPR unit was also used to survey the top of the temple platform and it indicated the presence of an intact arched vault underneath the stone platform. This chamber was already suspected because temples nearby at Selinus and Nephelion include the same form of feature. Additionally Professor Erdoğmuş began analysis of the block and lime mortar on site in order to gather authentic materials and assess the condition of the existing materials for the restoration process.[14]

    The 2009 season saw the team continue the architectural block recording and removal as well as remote sensing and excavation. The architectural block removal focused on the western and southern quadrants of the collapsed temple with refined documentation and photographic techniques. The blocks were removed with the help of a local crane operator who became adept at carefully lifting the ancient material. By the end of the season there was three block fields being used and four-hundred and thirty-four blocks successfully moved and five-hundred and forty-six blocks catalogued with almost half drawn. This has left three sides of the temple cleared with the east side still to be cleared. GPR was also used to scan the suspected vaulted chamber. 2009 excavations of the deposits under the platform allowed further scans to be undertaken and further indication of the vaulted chamber. Fiberscopic Remote Inspection equipment was also utilized to investigate the original structural and architectural designs of the temple. Several cavities were investigated but unfortunately none allowed for deep probing.[15]

    The excavations focused on the temple mound in 2009 starting with two small trenches (001 and 002) in the northern quadrant. Trench 001 revealed a long wall running parallel to the cella wall alongside the Eastern side of the temple podium. Much pottery and a frieze fragment was uncovered as well as a decorated columnar drum fragment. Trench 002 revealed little information concerning post-antique usage of the structure. Thick marble fragments of a floor were uncovered in both trenches 001 and 002. The suspected chamber vault’s entrance remained undiscovered after no evidence of an internal staircase was found. A trench 003 was also excavated to probe the exterior rear façade of the temple. Excavation through the fill around the temple revealed no discernible stratigraphy. Trench 003 also revealed the top of the base moulding of the temple supporting a large orthostate course.

    Erdogmus, E., Buckley, C.M., and H.Brink, ‘The Temple of Antioch: A Study of Abroad Internship for Architectural Engineering Students’, AEI 2011: Building Integration Solutions: Proceedings of the 2011 Architectural Engineering National Conference, March 30 – April 2, 2011, (Oakland, 2011), 1-9

    Hoff, M., “Interdisciplinary Assessment of a Roman Temple: Antiochia ad Kragos (Gazipasha, Turkey),” (with E. Erdogmus, R. Townsend, and S. Türkmen) in A. Görün, ed., Proceedings of the International Symposium on Studies on Historical Heritage, September 2007, Antalya, Turkey (Istanbul 2007) 163–70.

    Hoff, M., “Bath Architecture of Western Rough Cilicia,” in Hoff and Townsend, eds. Rough Cilicia, New Historical and Archaeological Approaches. An International Symposium held at the University of Nebraska, October 2007 (Oxford 2011) 12 page ms forthcoming.

    Hoff, M., “Life in the Truck Lane: Urban Development in Western Rough Cilicia,” (with N. Rauh, R. Townsend, M. Dillon, M. Doyle, C. Ward, R. Rothaus, H. Caner, U. Akkemik, L. Wandsnider, S. Ozaner, and C. Dore) Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien (JÖAI) 78 (2009) 169 page ms forthcoming.

    Hoff, M., “Rough Cilicia Archaeological Project: 2005 Season,” (with Rhys Townsend and Ece Erdogmus) 24. Arastirma Sonuçlari Toplantisi (24th Annual Archaeological Survey Symposium). Turkish Ministry of Culture (Ankara 2007) 231–44.

    Hoff, M., “The Antiochia ad Cragum Archaeological Research Project: Northeast Temple 2009 Season” (with E. Erdogmus and R. Townsend), Anadolu Akdenizi Arkeoloji Haberleri (ANMED) 8 (2010) 9-13.

    Hoff, M., “The Antiochia ad Cragum Archaeological Research Project: Northeast Temple 2008 Season” (with E. Erdogmus and R. Townsend), 27. Arastirma Sonuçlari Toplantisi (27th Annual Archaeological Survey Symposium).Turkish Ministry of Culture, Ankara 2009 (with R. Townsend and E. Erdogmus) 461-70.

    Hoff, M., “The Antiochia ad Cragum Archaeological Research Project: Northeast Temple 2008 Season” (with E. Erdogmus and R. Townsend), Anadolu Akdenizi Arkeoloji Haberleri (ANMED) 7 (2009) 6-11.

    Hoff, M., “The Antiochia ad Cragum Archaeological Research Project: Northeast Temple 2007 Season” (with E. Erdogmus and R. Townsend), 25. Arastirma Sonuçlari Toplantisi (25th Annual Archaeological Survey Symposium). Turkish Ministry of Culture (Ankara 2009) 95-102.

    Hoff, M., “The Antiochia ad Cragum Archaeological Research Project: Northeast Temple 2007 Season,” (with E. Erdogmus and R. Townsend, S. Türkmen) Anadolu Akdenizi Arkeoloji Haberleri (ANMED) 6 (2008) 95-99.

    Hoff, M., “The Rough Cilicia Archaeological Project: 2005 Season,” (with Rhys Townsend and Ece Erdogmus) Anadolu Akdenizi Arkeoloji Haberleri (ANMED) 4 (2006) 99–104.
    Hoff, M. and R. Townsend, eds. Rough Cilicia. New Historical and Archaeological Approaches. An International Symposium held at the University of Nebraska, October 2007 (Oxford 2011) forthcoming.

    Marten, M.G., ‘Spatial and Temporal Analyses of the Harbor at Antiochia ad Cragum’ (2005) Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations Paper 2715

    Turner, C.H., ‘Canons Attributed to the Council of Constantinople, A.D. 381, Together with the Names of the Bishops, from Two Patmos MSS POB’ POG’ ’, The Journal of Theological Studies (1914) M: 72

    [1] I’d like to thank Professor Michael Hoff of the University of Nebraska for the permission and freedom to write articles based on the excavations which are due to be published this year, in addition to Associate Professor Birol Can of Ataturk University for his kind permission to publish information on the mosaic and current excavations being undertaken by Ataturk University at Antiochia ad Cragum.


    Hamaksya

    Hamaksya, Antalya il sınırları Alanya ilçesi yakınlarındaki antik kent.

    Hamaksya, Alanya'ya 12 kilometre uzaktadır. Antik çağda Pamfilya bölgesi içindeki kent için dönemin coğrafyacısı Strabon, gemi yapımında kullanılan sedir ağaçlarının bol olduğunu yazar.

    Kentin, Roma Dönemi öncesi yerleşime açıldığı sanılmaktadır. Dağlık arazideki kentin en tepe noktasında rektogonal taşlardan yapılmış bir kulenin varlığı söz konusudur. Helenistik dönemin özelliklerini de taşıyan kentin önemli kalıntıları arasında önünde havuzu ile antik bir çeşme vardır. Yarım daire planlı, oturma sıraları halen ayakta duran ve yazıtlarla donatılmış geniş bir eksedra, dini yapı kompeksi ve nekropol kentin öteki kalıntıları arasında sayılabilir. Kentte bulunan yazıtlardan birinde haberci tanrı Hermes'in sembolü Kaduceus'un işlenmiş olması, Hermes adına bir tapınağın varlığının göstermektedir. Kent, İsa'dan sonra 2. ve 3. yüzyıllarda Korakesion'a (Alanya) bağlı olarak varlığını sürdüren küçük yerleşimdir.

    Ören yerine giriş ücretsizdir. Kentin deniz tarafına bakan yamacından Alanya manzarası çok güzeldir. Akdeniz'de pusun olmadığı havada 100 kilometreden uzun kıyı şeridinde Gazipaşa'dan Manavgat'a kadar uzanan bölgeyi seyretmek olasıdır.


    Watch the video: Selahattin Demirtaşı Destekleyen Ünlüler! (June 2022).


    Comments:

    1. Akinom

      Bravo, I think this sentence is brilliant

    2. Ealhhard

      You are absolutely right.

    3. Tygorr

      Charming phrase

    4. Mogal

      I think you are wrong. I propose to discuss it.

    5. Tojasar

      I also see this from time to time, but somehow I did not attach any importance to it before.



    Write a message