This dissertation examines the idea that ethnographically reported relationships between artifact classes and faunal food resource remains can be detected in an archaeological context. A detailed site report is presented for Deep Bay (DiSe 7), including analyses of the artifact and faunal assemblages, and quantitative techniques are employed to search for associations between faunal and artifact variables in this site. The results of four analyses are compared, and the recurring associations of variable pairs are interpreted in the light of ethnographic and ecological data. The various lines of evidence relevant to the most likely season of site occupation are also examined. It is concluded that some of the ethnographically reported food resource procurement patterns can successfully be detected in the archaeological record. Evidence is presented that suggests the existence of food resource procurement systems centered around herring, deer, sea mammal, and migratory waterfowl. The site was most likely occupied during the late winter and early spring, primarily for deer hunting and herring fishing, and secondarily for sea mammal and waterfowl hunting. The acquisition of molluscs is considered to be a given. This subsistence pattern appears to have varied little over the past 2000 years. It is also concluded that the same techniques could be used profitably for similar studies in the future. / Arts, Faculty of / Anthropology, Department of / Graduate

The Galatians were a group of Celts who arrived in Anatolia from the west in 278 B.C. According to the historical sources, they earned their livelihood by plundering and by serving as mercenaries in the eastern Mediterranean. Ancient authors state that the Galatians constituted a definite threat to the cities of western Asia Minor before they were settled in central Anatolia. Galatia became a Roman province in 25 B.C.; by that time, the Galatians had been thoroughly absorbed by the local population. The purpose of this paper is to see what archaeological evidence exists for the presence of the Galatians in Anatolia during the pre-provincial period, and how that evidence can be obtained. Three types of evidence are examined: pottery, burials and grave goods, and forts and settlements. Galatian pottery is still a controversial subject requiring more study and excavation. Only one burial site, Karalar, can definitely be identified by an inscription in Greek. The evidence from this site suggests that the Galatians adopted various types of Hellenistic tomb architecture and that they placed a fundamentally Hellenistic selection of grave goods within their tombs and graves. Galatian burials are therefore hard to distinguish from ordinary Hellenistic burials in Anatolia. Three tores and three fibulae from burials at Karalar, Bolu, and Bogazk5y are probably Celtic; that there are so few of them suggests that they had been imported from Europe, and that the Galatians were not themselves metalworkers in the Celtic tradition. Such objects cannot be used as the sole means of identifying Galatian burials. The situation is little better for forts and settlements. Some have been identified because they were inhabited by literate people before or after the arrival of the Galatians; others have been suggested because of the likelihood of their location. Settlement seems to be more dense west of the Halys but more surveys and excavation are necessary to test this emerging pattern. So far, the pre-provincial period has yielded little in the way of archaeological evidence for the presence of the Galatians in Anatolia, despite the solid background provided by the historical sources. The Galatians had little connection with the European Celts and adapted easily to local customs. This capacity for adaptation makes it difficult to say what is Galatian and what is Anatolian Hellenistic. Only further work in the field can remedy this state of affairs. / Arts, Faculty of / Classical, Near Eastern and Religious Studies, Department of / Graduate

The double-pipe reed woodwind known as the aulos was the most pervasive instrument in ancient Greek life. Despite recent attention to affect and the senses and advancements in ancient musicology, there remains no comprehensive study of this cultural phenomenon. Bringing the burgeoning field of sound studies to bear on the diverse range of evidence, this dissertation offers the first cultural history of aulos performance, focusing on a crucial period of its activity spanning the sixth through fourth centuries BCE. I propose an interpretive model that works across textual and material sources to account for the ineffable, affective ways in which the instrument acts upon the embodied listener. When we consider the aulos as a sonic medium that works beyond the structural and semantic boundaries of music and language, we can identify how the instrument communicates across contexts through certain structures of feeling its sound. By exploring the world-building capacities of the instrument’s sound effects and harmonics, I chart the history of these embodied ways of knowing its sound. I argue that the aulos operates through a culturally conditioned interface with the body, exerting an agency that impacts social and civic identity, drives musical innovation, and poses a cultural threat to discursive ways of knowing and rational persuasion. The five chapters identify the interplay of tradition and innovation across the contexts of aulos performance, between musical and theatrical genres as well as civic practices involving corporate movement. Meanwhile, with the rise of prose, the emerging critical discourse on the aulos analyzes its effect on the body specifically and aims to expose how the listener is tricked into the “enchanting” soundworlds it constructs. This interdisciplinary media-based approach to ancient Greek performance thus presents a new register of meaning-making that articulates unexplored aspects of the artistic, literary, and philosophical works that preserve this culture.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Note:

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.