Approximately 5,500 years ago a discreet period of wetter and cooler environmental conditions prevailed across the southern Columbia Plateau. This period was marked by the first prominent episodes of erosion to occur along the lower Snake River following the height of the Altithermal and eruption of Mt. Mazama during the mid post-glacial. In addition to the reactivation of small stream courses choked with debris and sediment, large stream channels began downcutting and scouring older terrace faces incorporated with large accumulations of Mazama ash. The resulting degradation of aquatic habitats forced concurrent changes within human economies adapted to the local riverine-environments. These adjustments reported for the Tucannon phase time period along the lower Snake River are notable and demonstrate the degree to which Cascade phase culture was unsuccessful in coping with environmental instability at the end of the Altithermal time period. This successionary event has demonstratively become the most significant post-glacial, qualitative change to occur in the lifeways of lower Snake River people prior to Euro-American influence. / Graduation date: 1995

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Toronto, 2004. / Adviser: Martha A. Latta. Includes bibliographical references.

Site 35J04 is located on the south bank of the Rogue River, four miles west of Grants Pass, Oregon. Excavation of the site was conducted in 1976 by Oregon State University under contract to the Corvallis branch of CH2M/Hill. Eight artifact assemblages were distinguished during the analysis of the site. From these assemblages two distinct components were defined. Component I was dated to 460±90 BP. A close affiliation with the coast is evident for this time period from the concaved-base projectile points which are unique to this component. On the coast these concaved-base points are a late development and are usually associated with shell middens. Component II consisted to two circular house pits and the contemporary living surface around them. Carbon 14 dates this component at approximately 1400 BP. The dominant projectile point for this component was small, 9 mm to 18 mm in length, triangular-blade, corner-to-base notched point. An interior adaptation is evident for this component. Light, periodic use of the site was evident between component I and component II. The site had also been used prior to the component II occupation. Cultural debris was present in low frequency to a depth of 1.9 meters below the surface. / Graduation date: 1979

The history and ideology of preservation increasingly arouse interest in parallel with the rising importance of the cultural heritage and preserving it. Hagia Sophia is one of the monuments that comes to mind immediately when the cultural heritage of Turkey is mentioned. Both as a Byzantine and an Ottoman ecclesiastical and imperial monument, Hagia Sophia bears political and religious importance besides its artistic and architectural uniqueness, 1500 years after its construction. This study aims to expose the change in the official attitudes towards preserving antiquities in the transition period from the Ottoman Empire to the Turkish Republic, through examining the ideological and physical approaches to Hagia Sophia. In the Late Ottoman Period important leaps about two important components of cultural life, museology and archeology, were realized in terms of both preservation and exposition of the antiquities, besides the political, economical and judicial changes. Thus, the emergence of museological and archeological studies and related legislations in the Late Ottoman Empire Period and their development in the Early Republican Period are examined chronologically in this study. The reasons behind the changes in the usage of Hagia Sophia, from a church to a mosque and then to a museum, are researched in order to understand the ideology of the adaptive re-use and its results while evaluating the impact and meaning of the afterlives. The selected time period is very critical because the changes occurring in the social and political life of the country, together with the change of the ruling power, paved the way for the present situation in Turkey.

Not available / text

Not available / text

Not available / text

This dissertation considers the Native North American repatriation movement as a sociocultural study, in which traditional knowledge and other information accompany returns to tribes. I engage this process with the Cayuse, Umatilla, and Walla Walla Tribes of northeastern Oregon (the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation) as they present, preserve, and perpetuate tribal history and culture at their museum, Tamástslikt Cultural Institute. I also explore self-representation and Native participation at the Pendleton Round-Up rodeo and "wild west" pageant in the neighboring town of Pendleton, Oregon. Investigating the connectivity between repatriation, collaboration, and representation, I ask how repatriation defines itself beyond the return of objects of cultural patrimony to influence the development of a tribal cultural and historical narrative. I argue that newly developed tribal perspectives are therefore a bi-product of repatriation. By presenting tribal perspectives based in negotiation, repatriation thus leads to self-representation via collaborative processes. Collaborative processes allow for anthropological research and knowledge to be shared, accessed, and controlled by Native communities, thus allowing for multiple forms of repatriation to manifest. Working within a collaborative framework based primarily in grounded and emergent theory, I also brought theories of the diaspora, historical memory, and trauma to bear on my research in hopes of exploring how return is further complicated in both a literal and a figurative sense. I am informed by Native American and Cultural Studies, yet rather than rejecting or discarding the historical relationship of contact between Anthropology and Native America, this dissertation favors a discussion of changes and adjustments within it. My work contributes to the anthropological literature on tribal museums and representation, and to new understandings of the repatriation of identity and knowledge. I also hope to contribute to growing collaborative action/advocacy-based ethnographic models for conducting research with Native North Americans. An applied and collaborative methodology was employed as I assisted in realizing projects initiated by the Tribes' and operating within a particular Native worldview, spanning from curation to interpretation, at Tamástslikt. While remaining separate and distinct, my own dissertation project was nevertheless structured, informed, and achieved alongside, and in conjunction with, tribally controlled projects.

The main purpose of this thesis is to study the part played by the Gibeonites in the history of Israel from the Settlement to the end of the United Monarchy. A secondary purpose is to present, within this context, a hypothesis to explain the absence of any mention of Gibeon and the Ark between 1 Sam. 7,2 and 2 Sam. 5,25. In the first chapter the material available for this study is surveyed. The occurrence of one or other of the cities in nonbiblical records and the contribution of excavation at el ǧib are examined, but in the nature of the case we are dependent almost entirely on the Old Testament. An analysis of the occurrence of 'Gibeon' and 'Gibeonite' in the Old Testament involves us in the textual problems arising out of confusion between 'Gibeon' and similar forms, especially 'ha-Gib‘ah'. We conclude that, while there are only two cases where emendation of MT is required, some cases of 'ha-Gib‘ah' may refer to Gibeon. The analysis emphasizes the absence of any mention of Gibeon in Jg. and 1 Sam. In the second chapter the situation of the four cities is discussed in the order of Jos. 9,17. The long debate on the identification of Gibeon is summarized. A situation at el ǧib has been confirmed by the recent excavation of that site by J.B.Pritchard. The important question of the relation between Gibeon (el ǧib) and the adjoining nebi samwil is discussed. Chephirah is to be identified with tell kefireh and Beeroth very probably with el bireh. Important information about the inhabitants of Beeroth is found in 2 Sam. 4,2ff and the view that 2 Sam. 4,3 refers indirectly to hostile action of Saul against the Gibeonites is defended. Kiriath-jearim raises a special problem since it occurs in the city-lists of Benjamin and Judah and is described in 1 Sam. 7,2 as the temporary residence of the Ark. After a form-critical discussion of the city- and boundary-lists it is concluded that the form kiriathis original and the identification with Baalah secondary. The position of Kiriath-jearim (karyet el 'enab) on the boundary of Judah, together with Ekron and Beth-shemesh, is seen as important for the history of the Ark's movements in this obscure period. An additional note on Benjaminite Mizpah concludes with a tentative identification of the Mizpah occurring in Jg. and 1 Sam. with nebi samwil. The Gibeonites are described as both Hivite and Amorite in the Old Testament, therefore as having a definite ethnic identity which is examined in the third chapter. It is argued that biblical Horite means Hurrian and that Hivite, though not absolutely identical with Horite, is very closely related to it. This provides good reason for believing that the Gibeonites were a basically Hurrian group, and it is shown that the designation Amorite does not contradict this. The hypothesis of a basic Hurrian element among the Gibeonites is then tested by a study of Gibeonite names, including those from el ǧib. To these are added the considerable number of Saulite names on the grounds that the mention of his family burial-place in 2 Sam. 21,13f and the Chronicler's Saulite "genealogy" in 1 Chr. 8,33ff imply that Saul had Gibeonite connexions. Making due allowance for names of uncertain derivation, the results of this onomastic study are held to confirm the Hurrian element in the Gibeonites and, to a lesser extent, in Saul's family. In the following chapter an attempt is made to place the biblical evidence for Hurrians in Palestine, especially in the region north west of Jerusalem, in the context of our present knowledge of Hurrian movements in the second half of the second millenium. The evidence from sites in Syria points to a movement towards the south and west and this is consonant with what we find in the Amarna letters and the earliest biblical traditions. A possible explanation of the absence of Gibeon in any inscription or record of the period is that this city was an appendage of the "land" of Jerusalem during the Amarna age. This view is defended and the provisional group of conclusion is drawn that the group of Gibeonite cities, as we meet them in Jos.9-10, was formed towards the end of or shortly after the Amarna period, a more exact date depending on the role of Joshua in the ratification of the treaty and the date assigned to him. Forrer's hypothesis based on the Pestilence Prayer of Mursilis is also examined. The Gibeonite cities are understood as forming a definite political and ethnic unit under an oligarchic rule, in some respects similar to the situation at Shechem. Very probably they worshipped at a central sanctuary which is identified with nebi samwil. An evaluation of the historical character of Jos. 9-10, describing the Israelite-Gibeonite treaty followed by the anti-Gibeonite Amorite coalition and its defeat, is evidently important for the Gibeonite question. A literary analysis of Jos.9 reveals two principal motives behind this composition: to justify Israelite tolerance of this ethnically non-Israelite group and to explain the origins of a class of minor cult personnel known in the post-exilic period as the nethinim. Evidence of anti-Gibeonite and anti-Benjaminite polemic is also found in this chapter. The historicity of the treaty is supported by a close comparison with contemporary or near-contemporary treaties, especially those of the Hittites. The contracting parties were Benjamin, and possibly the Joseph tribes, on the one side, all of the Gibeonite cities acting in solidum on the other. It is concluded that the biblical Gibeonites and the Benjaminites probably arrived at much the same time in Canaan and concluded an agreement shortly after their arrival. In chapter six the battle-narrative (Jos,10,10-14) is examined from which the conclusion is reached that there is no reason to doubt the historical connexion between treaty and battle, though the role of Joshua may be secondary. The hypothesis is advanced that the verse fragment (w,12b-13a) was originally addressed to a solar deity enjoining upon it not to take part in the action. It is further suggested that a causal connexion may have existed in the mind of the redactor between the discomforting of the enemy and the presence or proximity of the Ark. In the following chapter ve return to the problem of the almost complete lack of reference to the Gibeonite cities in the Old Testament tradition covering the period of the Judges and the reign of Saul. The only exceptions are 1 Sam. 6,21-7,2 and 2 Sam. 5,25-6,3, respectively the account of the transfer of the Ark from Beth-shemesh and its being taken up to Jerusalem. These tvo events are separated by a period of about half a century, for which period the Old Testament historical tradition has left us no mention of either Gibeon or the Ark. It is argued that this demands an explanation, and the possibility is investigated that Judahite and/or Deuteronomist re-editing may have been partially responsible for this "silence" of the tradition. Indirect evidence for Gibeon and the Gibeonites during this period is sought in 2 Sam. 4,2ff and 21,Iff, referring to hostilities of Saul against the Gibeonites, 1 Kings 3,4 and post-exilic references to the city and an analysis of the passages in 1 Sam. dealing with the Philistine war. On this basis a reconstruction of the part played by the Gibeonites in this period is attempted. In chapter eight the hypothesis is advanced and tested that the Gibeonite high place was an Ark-sanctuary for part of the period between 1 Sam. 7,2 and 2 Sam.6,1. It cannot be supposed without further question that the Ark was simply neglected during this period.

This work falls into two major sections. After a brief introduction (chapter 1), a preliminary chapter describes the landscape and climate of Wales and the Marches and the limitations which they impose upon settlement and agriculture. The history and archaeology of the region is then summarised in five chapters which deal with Late Bronze Age and Iron Age society and economy (chapter 3), the Roman conquest (chapter 4), the Roman occupation and its effects (chapter 5), the Late Roman period and the Roman withdrawal (chapter 6) and the post- Roman period (chapter 7). In the second major section, six chapters discuss broader themes against this background. These themes are the density and growth of the population, the development of agriculture, non-agricultural aspects of the economy of the region, the changing patterns of settlement, the social organisation of the region and the systems of land tenure employed there. It is argued that the population of the region was relatively high throughout the period under study, and did not suffer a decline comparable with that postulated in post-Roman England (chapters 8, 14); tha the economy of the region was fundamentally rural and that urban development, foreign to the region, was only achieved under external pressures (chapters 9, 10); that the pattern of settlement expanded as a result of population pressures (chapter 11); that society was fundamentally conservative, retaining in the post-Roman period elements probably derived from the pre-Roman period, for instance the close dependence of status on the possession of a certain amount of landed property (chapters 12, 14), as a result of which the native elements in the land law limited the powers of the individual to alienate inherited land and stipulated an extended period for the acquisition of land (chapters 13, 14). Particular attention is paid throughout to the effects of the Roman occupation on the development of the region.