Tents

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, or The Modern Prometheus (1818) has become a cornerstone of contemporary Critical Animal Studies due to its underlying vegetarian themes, which are largely drawn from Romantic Promethean and Miltonic archetypes. The ethical “Fall” of the novel’s famous creature—from vegetarian innocence into murderous corruption—has often been read as analogous to that of Satan in John Milton’s Paradise Lost (1667), which the creature reads as a “true history” (M. Shelley 104).  However, there is another, often overlooked, Romantic archetype invoked by both Milton and Mary Shelley, which is equally important to the cultural implications of meat-eating, which is that of Cain—the first murderer in the Abrahamic book of Genesis—whose fall is inspired by his creator’s rejection of his vegetarian offering. By comparing the Fall of Frankenstein’s creature with that of the generations of Cain’s progeny (who become increasingly carnivorous) in Genesis and Paradise Lost, I assert an identification between Frankenstein’s creature and Cain that implies a carnivorous cause for his moral failing and an unrecognised ethical inheritance from Percy Shelley’s influential “Vindication of Natural Diet.”

The Persian term khargāh is first attested at the beginning of the 4th/10th century. It has often been translated as “hut” or “pavilion”, but a comprehensive overview of the historical, geographical and poetical sources points to a more precise definition. Three main conclusions can be established. First, from the beginning the term exclusively referred to the trellis tent (commonly known as yurt) first identified in a Turkic milieu in Inner Asia. Secondly, khargāh is a loan word from Sogdian which entered the Arabic and Persian languages through the Sāmānid court and quickly replaced the Arabic expression al-qubba al-turkiyya which was previously used to refer to this kind of tent. Thirdly, the presence of the trellis tent in Muslim courts predates the arrival of the nomadic Saljuqs in the 5th/11th century. The trellis tent, associated with the cloth enclosure (or sarāparda), was already a status symbol under the Sāmānids and Būyids. Thus this study, which lies at the crossroads of lexicography and the history of technology, provides new elements towards a better understanding of Central Asian cultural influence on the wider ‘Abbāsid world.

This study aims to explore a number of conceptual models that may prove fruitful in the study of architectural mobilities within and beyond Islamic lands from the eighteenth century until today. Beginning with a discussion of the “new mobilities” paradigm, the essay explores several examples of architecture on the move via textile metaphors, micro-architecture, flows and hubs, tentage traditions, and urban “slumming.” The use of the kiswa and small-scale models reveals how the Ka‘ba and Dome of the Rock have been symbolically dispersed and repurposed in new geographical and religious contexts. Moreover, tensile forms are frequently cited in order to promote notions of authenticity and transience while also serving as weapons within urban warfare, as seen in the 2013 Gezi Uprisings in Turkey. These types of movement between media, spaces, and places highlight the fact that architectural practices are never wholly distinct or dichotomous; that mobility and fixity are very often mutually dependent; that the past is frequently “moved”—both conceptually and emotionally—into the present; and that manipulations of urban space can serve as highly visible stages for the enunciation and performance of ideological conflict today.

In the early 1960s, the Saudi Ministry of Defense and Aviation began planning for an air terminal that was urgently required to accommodate the hundreds of thousands of Hajj pilgrims that arrived yearly. Approximately five hundred thousand pilgrims were expected to arrive in 1975, and that number was certain to increase exponentially over the years. The creation of a suitable facility was thus an absolute necessity. This article investigates how designers successfully addressed the issue of creating such a mammoth terminal without adopting the International Style of architecture, then virtually ubiquitous. It begins by outlining the development of the International Style and mentions the concerns of its critics. It then examines how the developers of the Hajj Terminal addressed these concerns by adopting a neo-Vernacular approach to create a stunningly beautiful edifice which, while reflecting traditional vernacular precedents in its tent-shaped design, was also to become the world's most immense fabric structure enclosing the world's largest covered space. Today, the Hajj Terminal encompasses an area greater than the international airports of New York, Chicago and Paris combined. Approximately two million pilgrims pass through the terminal every year, making it the center of the biggest airlift in the world during the pilgrimage season.

The Sinor Research Institute for Inner Asian studies defines the term Inner Asia as follows: Inner Asia, or the interior of the Eurasian landmass, comprises in historical terms the civilizations of Central Asia, Mongolia, and Tibet, together with neighbouring areas and peoples that in certain periods formed cultural, political, or ethnolinguistic unities with these regions. In the past the Inner Asian world was dominated by pastoral nomadic communities of the great Eurasian steppe, and its history was shaped by the interaction of these societies with neighbouring sedentary civilizations. (Website of the Sinor Research Institute, Indiana, Bloomington). Thus, Inner Asia is not only a geographic term but even more a cultural-historical term for defining the broader region which led to the emergence of different nomadic populations in Asia. These civilizations and peoples were and are mostly inhabiting the arid steppe areas in the interior of the continent. Their economy was mostly based on cattle herding; the ecology of the steppe made it necessary to move the animals at certain intervals to avoid overgrazing. This frequent change of location together with the requirements and benefits of animal husbandry led to the emergence of certain specific dwelling forms, several of which endure and are still used even in our modern age. The fact that these buildings are still present may be a proof of their sophistication and adaptation to local climate and prevailing lifestyle. However, as everywhere, in many Inner Asian countries, the lifestyles and economy of the people are changing, and these changes lead in many places to sedentarization and the abandonment of nomadic habits. Types of Nomadic Dwellings Historically, we can discern several types of nomadic dwellings, which were used in Inner Asia: • Tents with a load-bearing inner structure • The yurt (Turkic) or ger (Mongolian), a trellis tent with a load-bearing inner structure and felt covering • Carts with tents attached to them • The black tent, a very special tent form made out of black goat hair or yak hair • Different tents, usually for very temporary purposes and not intended for permanent dwelling At present, only the trellis tent (the so-called yurt or ger) and the black tent are still in use among Inner Asian nomads for permanent dwelling. Tents with a load-bearing inner structure (the precursors of trellis tents) and carts with attached tents are only of historical significance. While the more permanent nomadic structures remain in one place usually for a period from 2 to 3 weeks to several months, according to the environment and time of the year, various simple tent types, usually made of light materials, are used for a few days' stay during hunting, traveling or attending festivities. While in Mongolia the harsh climate makes agriculture a not very viable alternative to animal husbandry, in many Central Asian countries there is an option, especially with the advent of modernization , to switch to agriculture. Especially in those countries formerly part of the USSR, this change was

This article discusses the origin of the Persian word ḫargāh, which is used by medieval authors to speak of the trellis tent (yurt). It argues that the word xrγ'xh found in the Sogdian text P.3 written in pre-Samanid Central Asia refer to the same object. It also builds a case for a local origin of the word, and a probable link with kërëkü, the Turkic word referring to the same type of tent.

“Encampment” refers to the construction of a field,
the establishment of a territory, the act of defining and
enclosing a piece of land. In Santiago, Chile, encampments
(campamentos) have historically served as a
means to conquer urban space, as a strategy through
which people solved urban housing shortages on their
own terms. Throughout the twentieth century, informal
settlements established around the city’s periphery used
tents and other forms of light construction as a first step
toward gradually claiming ownership of the land, ultimately
creating a pathway to formalized home ownership
for those involved. The tents in the photograph from the
early 1970s represent a city in which housing is the first
and only element.

מאמר זה מתמקד באוהלי המחאה של קיץ 2011 בישראל כתופעה חזותית ושואף להבין מה סימלו האוהלים ואיזה מין שימוש פוליטי עושה הנוכחות שלהם בסמליות הזאת. מה מייבא עמו האוהל כסמל ומהי האפקטיביות הפוליטית שלו? האם אכן מדובר בסמליות ובייצוג, או שמא היווה האוהל למעשה פרפורמנס של הנישול והדיכוי שהם מנת חלקם של המוחים והמוחות? מדוע לא הסתפקה עוד המחאה הזאת בגופים התופסים יחדיו מקום בפומבי, ונזקקה לאוהלים בכדי לאחוז במרחב? כיצד הפכו האוהלים, הנדמים כאלמנט שמחלק ומפלג את המרחב לכדי מרחבים פרטיים ונפרדים, לביטוי של פעולה מאוחדת וקיום קהילתי? ואיזו מין קהילה היא זאת? לבסוף, לאור הופעת האוהלים במחאות פלסטיניות ב-2013, מאמר זה בוחן האם וכיצד הופעת האוהלים משני עברי הקו הירוק מאפשרת לחבר בין המחאה הישראלית והמחאה הפלסטינית ולחשוב עליהן יחדיו, מבלי להתעלם מן ההבדלים ביניהן.
חלקו הראשון של המאמר פורש ארבע סוגיות הנובעות מתפיסת האוהליםכסמליים, ומראה כיצד סוגיות אלו משקפות את הביקורת שהועלתה כנגד המחאה. החלק השני פונה לבחון אילו תובנות ניתן להפיק מתפיסת האוהלים כפרפורמנס, כמעשה, ולא כסמל בלבד. על ידי ניתוח אותן ארבע סוגיות דרך עדשת הפרפורמנס המאמר מדגים כיצד ניתן לתפוס את אותם אוהלים בדיוק כדוחים את הנרטיב ההגמוני וכמייצרים מרחב ציבורי מכיל ומורכב, מרחב המכיר בהבדלים ובהיסטוריה, המבטא קונפליקטים מתוך הבנתם בלשון רבים, ושבתוכו נוצרת קהילה שאופייה נתון במשא ומתן תמידי.
This essay examines protest tents in Israel as a visual phenomenon and strives to articulate their significance. What did tents symbolize and what were their political effects? Was the tent in fact a symbol or was it rather a form of performance? Why were bodies standing up together in public no longer sufficient to stage protest, thus requiring the supplement of the tent? How has the tent—as an element that seems to divide space up into discrete, individual cells—become an instance of collective existence and action? And what kind of collectivity is it? Finally, this essay examines whether the emergence of tents on both sides of the Green Line may allow us to consider the Israeli and the Palestinian protests together, yet without denying their differences.
The first part of this essay considers the phenomenon of the tent in these protests as a symbol, both visual and political. In this part, I outline four issues that arise from this consideration of tents as representational and demonstrate how these issues mirror the criticisms that were leveled against the protest. Critics have claimed, for instance, that the protest was limited to the hegemonic elites of Israeli society and therefore excluded many segments of the population; that it was so concerned with being “a-political” that it completely ignored the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories; that it failed to produce clear demands and thus to translate itself into enduring political reforms; and that it was too concerned with the individual and with bettering her living conditions by way of private property. Following this review of the tent as a symbol and the ways it reflects criticisms of the protest, I turn, in the second part of this essay, to examine whether considering these tents rather as a form of performance, may yield different insights. By analyzing the same four issues through the lens of performance I show how the very same tents may be seen as rejecting the hegemonic narrative and producing an inclusive and conflicted public space, where differences in histories are recognized, conflicts in the plural are rearticulated, and a community is fashioned and continuously negotiated.

At Orp East the find concentration has a hexagonal shape, is 4.5m in length and has a maximum width of 3.8m. Its boundaries are marked by a clear decrease in find density or by an increase of find quantities per unit in connection with a clear decrease of numbers of finds externally. The boundaries of the find concentration are accentuated by numerous tools and cores which accumulated there, and by several refitting lines which terminate at the boundary. These indications for formerly effective limits to the find concentration are interpreted as showing the presence of a dwelling. The dwelling had a central hearth with an extended working zone, which is extremely rich in debitage, cores and tools and is spatially strictly confined. The area of this hearth has been deepened in a systematic manner, and it has straight edges. The central hearth was possibly accompanied by a smaller fireplace nearby and by shallow pits and depressions. There are two distinct working zones in the NW and SE halves of the presumed dwelling.

Key words: Upper Palaeolithic / Magdalenian / dwellings / artefact density / refits of artefacts

At the Final Palaeolithic (Federmessergruppen) sites of Niederbieber (Area IV), Andernach-Martinsberg 3 and Berlin-Tegel IX a combination of different methods of spatial analysis reveals indications of a former separation of the main accumulations of finds from the surrounding area. All three find scatters are very dense and show a marked sudden decrease at their edges. The distribution of larger objects and refitting lines between artefacts respect the edges of the find scatters. In some cases, certain finds, such as unburned larger bone fragments or larger stones, are not found within the artefact find scatter. We interpret these as indications of a formerly effective limitation of the find concentrations that show the former presence of dwelling structures.

Nur aus der Anfangsphase des untersuchten Beobachtungszeitraums, der sich von 15000 v. Chr. bis 5000 v. Chr. erstreckt, sind Behausungen anhand direkter Funde erkennbar. Bei anderen Fundstellen können nur die Fundkonzentrationen Rückschlüsse auf die Form und Aufteilung möglicher Behausungen geben.
Sechs solcher Fundstellen werden in dieser Studie präsentiert: Dazu gehören die Lagerplätze des Magdalénien in Cepoy im Pariser Becken und in Orp-Ost in Brabant, sowie die Fundkonzentrationen der Federmessergruppen Rekem 10 in Belgien, Geldrop 3-2 in den südlichen Niederlanden, Berlin-Tegel IX und aus dem Mesolithikum Hartmannsdorf 26-1 in Brandenburg.
Durch Kartierungen von Artefakten wurden die Arbeitsbereiche innerhalb der Wohnplätze charakterisiert und die erzielten Ergebnisse mit anderen ausgewählten Fundstellen verglichen.  *****
Accumulations of lithic artefacts and burnt fragments of hearth stones can be interpreted as evidence for late glacial and postglacial habitation structures without surviving constructional elements when a number of factors coincide to permit recognition of a former delimitation of the find concentration fram its surraundings, i.e. to show the original graund plan of the dwelling. The discussed artefact concentrations are characterized by a clear reduction in the amount of material at their periphery. A rise in the quantity of finds from the centre to the immediate edge of a find concentration associated with a drastic fall in the amount of finds beyond this point merely represents a particularly favourable example of this phenomenon. The density of find distribution of many smaller concentrations of finds, with a maximum diameter of some 4 m, does not decrease gradually with the distance fram the centrally placed hearth but instead tends to appear as a plateau which breaks off rapidly at the edge. The identification of this peripheral decrease in find density becomes clearer in direct relation to the number and small size of the excavation units with wh ich the fine fraction of the material - which generally forms the largest component - was recovered. In the case of larger objects, the measurement of individual finds allows an optimal investigation of their distribution
patterns. In conjunction with the clear demarcation of the find concentration and the decrease in material at its edge, which can be represented particularly weil by find density isopachs, the location of former effective boundaries can also be shown by the positions of refitting lines and lithic tools relative to these. The presence immediately outside the concentration of specific objects such as large bones or unwieldy blocks of stone which would have formed hindrances within the dwelling space can also show the location of a wall. The combination of commonly accepted analytical methods for the investigation of Stone Age settlement structures and their synthetic graphic depiction enable the direct comparison of their differing evidence for irregularities in find distribution patterns. In this way it is possible to investigate those dwelling sites which are not amenable to meaningful analysis by the popular Ring-and-Sector Method, either because they are not circular in form or because their structure can not be subdivided due to their small size.
Six concentrations of finds were analysed within the framework of this study. In three ca ses it was possible to demonstrate the presence of a dwelling structure by the combination of previously established strands of evidence. At Orp Ost, a hexagonal Magdalenian dwelling structure was identified with a length of 5.5 m, a width of 3.8 m and a surface area of some 14 m2 . This structure had a central hearth, close to which were located a further small hearth, two pits and two shallow depressions recognizable due to their content of finds. Thus there existed a centrally located hearth complex of a type previously known only from large Magdalenian tents at Gönnersdorf and Andernach, where the presence of paved areas favoured their preservation, and fram Andernach IV. In the case of the Federmessergruppen site Rekem 10, R. Lauwers had already postulated the possible presence of a dwelling due to a ring of large stone blocks peripheral to the concentration of finds, a suggestion which was lent further weight by M. De Bie with his recognition of a clear rise in the number of finds towards the edge of the concentration in association with a fall in numbers beyond this. The shape of the tent ground plan can be more accurately reconstructed by the numerous refitting lines between conjoined finds. Rekem 10 appears as a trapezoidal zone distinct from the surrounding area measuring some 5 m in length and 4.5 m in breadth with a surface area of appraximately 18 m2. A trapezoidal form was also established for a Federmessergruppen tent at Berlin-Tegel IX, which in this case measured 4 m in length and at most 4 m in breadth with a surface area of only some 15 m2. Parallel to this study, other colleagues have recognized further Federmessergruppen tent ground plans on the basis of find distribution patterns, so that the number of dwelling structures known from the Allerød Interstadial has increased greatly over the past few years. In their ground plan and size, these tents correspond to those described here: Andernach 3 (hexagonal, 14 m2 surface areal, Niederbieber I (narrow trapezoid, 12 m2 surface areal and Niederbieber IV (trapezoidal, 15 m2 surface areal. The late Federmessergruppen dwelling at Bad Breisig might have had a polygonal or circular ground plan with a diameter of ca. 5 m and a surface area of 20 m2 All of these structures are appreciably smaller than the large trapezoidal tents of the Magdalenian and early Backed-Point Complexes marked by peripheral rings of large stones (tent weights?) which have surface areas of 25 m2 and the still larger constructions of the Magdalenian with a polygonal ground plan covering an area of 35-40 m2. Tents with a trapezoidal ground plan and a generally similar internal organisation are also found during the Mesolithic, for which structures with circular and indeed rectangular forms up to 24 m2 in area are also known. While tents with a trapezoidal ground plan might be interpreted as possible evidence for surviving traditions of a dwelling construction, the great diversity in the shape of contemporary structures cannot be overlooked.
Two further find concentrations are interpreted as open air localities. Neither the Magdalenian find concentration around a hearth at Cepoy nor the concentration of artefacts at Geldrop 3-2 which is attributed to either the Ahrensburgian or the early Mesolithic produced any evidence that they were separated from the surrounding area by a wall. Numerous refitting lines between conjoined artefacts demonstrate that there were no barriers to obstruct the activities of the inhabitants. Hartmannsdorf 26-1 shows features only partially diagnostic of a peripheral barrier, so that the question whether this concentration of Mesolithic finds was associated with walls and a roof remains unanswered.
All the investigated find concentrations and the majority of the sites drawn upon for comparison had a centrally located hearth around which there could generally be distinguished discarded tools and production waste of two work zones representing the remains of distinct overlapping areas of activity. It is often astonishing how little the remains of these work places seem to have been disturbed, even allowing for the possibility of major cleaning-up activities and removal of waste. The persons present at the site had
different focuses of activity, whereby specific artefact types were not limited to a single working area. In the majority of cases, the particularly abundant waste from the production of hunting equipment is concentrated in only one area. The work zones complement each other to a certain extent, since tools which are poorly represented in one area are more common in the other, while other find categories are present in the same quantity. Such complementary work areas are not normally represented more than once around
a central hearth, so that it is probable that they are associated with the activity of only two main participants, suggesting an interpretation of each discussed find concentration as the remains of a (possibly multiple) occupation by a nuclear family. A different situation is given when several hearths are present surrounded by basically identical find distributions. However, this is the case for only a few large Magdalenian and Mesolithic tents which possibly housed several families. In the case of the large Magdalenian tents it has been possible to identify a temporal progression of hearth use, rendering their interpretation difficult. Nevertheless, it can be established that the few, particularly large structures which probably represent the dwellings of several families are so far known only from the Magdalenian and the Mesolithic. Also dating to these periods are those rare dwellings with surviving evident structures which were assembled with exceptional effort and probably for a long duration of use. The question as to why the construction of these large and extraordinarily costly dwellings should be favoured in such opposed biotopes as the steppe and deciduous forest must be addressed by future research.
(Translation by Martin Street).

Several dwelling structures of the Magdalenian and an early phase of the Final Palaeolithic (bipointe phase) are characterized by floors made of slabs of schist (Bosinski, 1979; Street, 1995) or by stones in lateral position used as weights (Jöris & Terberger, 2001). Such ...

If you're going to host wedding, a party, or professional conference, choosing a tent rental service is fairly significant issue. There's a variety of tenting options existing in the market at present. Before choosing them, it's crucial that you realize the type of numbers of your guest, budget, and function. You are able to choose among numerous professional party rental firms that serve your requirements if you understand just what you'll need.