Although the study of frontiers is of fundamental importance to a variety of academic fields and subdisciplines, few researchers have proposed terminology, models or conceptual frameworks that allow a cross-disciplinary supra-regional comparison of frontier dynamics. In this paper I take three steps toward rectifying this situation. First, I propose a simplified lexicon that is widely applicable across disciplinary, temporal and regional divides. This lexicon is meant to be a starting point in defining boundary situations. Second, lay out a model, called the “continuum of boundary dynamics.” This model is meant to aid researchers in characterizing various types of boundary situations. And third, propose a model, called the “borderland matrix” with which to visualize the dynamic interaction between different categories of boundaries. This model is meant to aid researchers in isolating processes that occur in borderlands. It is my position that only through systematic comparisons of boundary situations at various times and locations can we hope to understand the processes that take place in borderlands. By defining and characterizing boundary situations and then isolating the processes taking place there, I believe that we will come much closer to understanding the common and unique themes that make frontier studies a central interregional and interdisciplinary subject of study.

Campostoma anomalum, Clinostomus elongatus, Notropis photogenis, and Fundulus notatus in Canada are confined to a few streams in southern Ontario and are considered rare or threatened in this country. The distribution of C. anomalum shows dramatic expansion in the Thames River drainage over the past decade. Clinostomus elongatus has a disjunct distribution and has apparently been extirpated from several watersheds owing to habitat degradation. Information on the stability of N. photogenis and F. notatus populations is lacking. Both C. anomalum and N. photogenis are rheophilic and occur in relatively high gradient streams. Clinostomus elongatus occurs mainly in cool, clear headwaters. Fundulus notatus is confined to turbid and sluggish or stagnant streams. Factors affecting the vulnerability of these species, based on habitat requirements, are described and measures to conserve their habitats are suggested. Observations on growth, reproduction, feeding, predation, and parasitism are also described.

No abstract

It is clear from the royal correspondence of the Assyrian empire and from the annals of Assyrian kings that the construction of forts was an integral part of the permanent establishment of Assyrian sovereignty in newly conquered regions. Forts served as garrison outposts in formerly hostile areas and were therefore the first footholds of Assyrian expansion into recently annexed territories. They were military centres, from which campaigns and intelligence operations were conducted into and beyond the frontier, administrative centres where the daily affairs of the surrounding areas were directed and monitored, and communications hubs through which news and information were channelled. In addition to these roles, forts or garrison centres also served as conduits through which the Assyrian ideology of imperialism could be diffused into the periphery of the empire and the process of the acculturation of the “foreign” inhabitants of peripheral zones could be conducted.Liverani has suggested that Assyrian military expansion was not a process of conquering contiguous areas, in which a clear line could be drawn between regions under Assyrian control and those that were not. Instead, the process of Assyrian imperialism was one in which “islands” of Assyrian occupation were planted in peripheral zones soon after military incursions. In regions of Assyrian expansion, “the empire was not a spread of land but a network of communications” between Assyrian strongholds. The spaces between the “islands” of this “network empire” were slowly filled in through successive military incursion. Following these conquests new forts or garrison towns were constructed at critical junctures, to protect and fortify the networks connecting the existing Assyrian strongholds, and foreign populations were forcibly settled in the surrounding countryside. Peripheral regions were not, therefore, brought under the Assyrian yoke solely through swift military action but by the gradual growth and spread of “islands” of occupation into new regions. These “islands” must have initially consisted of forts or fortified settlements such as those referred to in the royal correspondence as birtu or HAL.ṢU meaning “fort”. This system of planting Assyrian garrisons in newly conquered regions is perhaps best exemplified in Nimrud Letter 48, in which the author speaks of “establishing the foundations (of a fort)” at several junctures in his campaign in the Iranian Zagros. As the system of Assyrian strongholds became more contiguous across the landscape, the area came more firmly into the grip of the imperial administration and the stage was set for expansion further into the periphery or into regions between these pockets of Assyrian control.

No abstract