| # | Polity | Coded Value | Tags | Year(s) | Edit | Desc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
e.g. Jilin, Amur River, Ürümqi, Tibet
|
||||||
|
Tlapacoya/Ayotla located on Xico island
[1]
[2]
[1]: Niederberger, Christine. (1996). "The Basin of Mexico: Multimillenial Development toward Cultural Complexity." In Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico, edited by Emily P. Benson and Beatriz de la Fuente. Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art, pp. 83-93. [2]: Niederberger, Christine. (2000) "Ranked Societies, Iconographic Complexity, and Economic Wealth in the Basin of Mexico Toward 1200 BC." In Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica, edited by John E. Clark and Mary E. Pye. New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 169-192. |
||||||
|
Tlapacoya/Ayotla located on Xico island
[1]
[2]
[1]: Niederberger, Christine. (1996). "The Basin of Mexico: Multimillenial Development toward Cultural Complexity." In Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico, edited by Emily P. Benson and Beatriz de la Fuente. Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art, pp. 83-93. [2]: Niederberger, Christine. (2000) "Ranked Societies, Iconographic Complexity, and Economic Wealth in the Basin of Mexico Toward 1200 BC." In Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica, edited by John E. Clark and Mary E. Pye. New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 169-192. |
||||||
|
"For urban centres in the rest of Mesoamerica, the lack of perimeter walls and defensive settings is striking. The undefended nature of Aztec towns, for example, contrasts sharply with the ethnohistoric record of Aztec warfare".
[1]
[1]: (Smith 2003: 38) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/WEIQNSNP |
||||||
|
"For fortifications, Aztec sites show a broad range with some totally exposed on valley floors and others being walled or at elevations. Tenochtitlan only had walls around the sacred precinct but of course had natural fortification by being an island in a lake that could be entered only through a few causeways. At the high end of fortification was the Tlaxcalan stronghold of Tepeticpac, up on a high hill and encircled by walls. That was their strategy of resistance against the Aztec empire. Huexotla is a site in the domain of Texcoco with a large wall and their were fortified garrisons on the frontier between the Aztec and Tarascan empires, in west Mexico. But probably more sites were not fortified than were. There was nothing comparable to the medieval European pattern or earlier fortified city states of Mesopotamia or elsewhere in Eurasia."
[1]
[1]: (Carballo 2019: pers. comm. to E. Cioni and G. Nazzaro) |
||||||
|
Not clear whether this information applies to pre-contact polities. "defenders more commonly established a fortress site known as a pali (cliff) or pā kauau (war enclosure), a “natural or artificial fortress, where they le their wives and children, and to which they fled if vanquished in the field.” One kind of fortress was the point of a narrow, steep-sided ridge that had been made somewhat defensible by digging deep trenches" Pg 35-36.
[1]
[1]: Hommon, Robert, J. 2013. The Ancient Hawaiian State: Origins of a Political Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. |
||||||
|
Not clear whether this information applies to pre-contact polities. "defenders more commonly established a fortress site known as a pali (cliff) or pā kauau (war enclosure), a “natural or artificial fortress, where they le their wives and children, and to which they fled if vanquished in the field.” One kind of fortress was the point of a narrow, steep-sided ridge that had been made somewhat defensible by digging deep trenches" Pg 35-36.
[1]
[1]: Hommon, Robert, J. 2013. The Ancient Hawaiian State: Origins of a Political Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. |
||||||
|
"defenders more commonly established a fortress site known as a pali (cliff) or pā kauau (war enclosure), a “natural or artificial fortress, where they leave their wives and children, and to which they fled if vanquished in the field.” One kind of fortress was the point of a narrow, steep-sided ridge that had been made somewhat defensible by digging deep trenches".
[1]
[1]: Hommon, Robert, J. 2013. The Ancient Hawaiian State: Origins of a Political Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pg 35-36. |
||||||
|
"defenders more commonly established a fortress site known as a pali (cliff) or pā kauau (war enclosure), a “natural or artificial fortress, where they leave their wives and children, and to which they fled if vanquished in the field.” One kind of fortress was the point of a narrow, steep-sided ridge that had been made somewhat defensible by digging deep trenches".
[1]
[1]: Hommon, Robert, J. 2013. The Ancient Hawaiian State: Origins of a Political Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pg 35-36. |
||||||
|
The sites of Sleeth and C.W. Cooper were located on "steep, defensible bluff crests"
[1]
.
[1]: T. Pauketat and J. Brown, The late prehistory and protohistory of Illinois, in J.A. Walthall and T.E. Emerson (eds.) Calumet & fleur-de-lys: archaeology of Indian and French contact in the midcontinent (1992), pp. 77-128 |
||||||
|
In terms of settlement organisation, the main defensive strategy seems to have been to construct larger villages
[1]
.
[1]: Illinois State Museum, Illinois Economy: Settlements (2000), http://www.museum.state.il.us/muslink/nat_amer/post/htmls/ec_settle.html |
||||||
|
This refers to the Mun River Valley in Thailand, an area outside the NGA but tightly linked to the development of Angkor: The sites were preferentially located next to stream channels, and the construction of banks permitted water to be controlled and retained in the immediate surrounds of each settlement. Water is essential to life in the dry season of northeast Thailand. The broad moats not only assured the water supply, but also augmented the availability of fish and shellfish. They would also have been at least a deterrent to surprise attacks from rival groups. The presence of iron weaponry leaves little doubt that conflict was on the rise, although the evidence is not as clear cut as for the contemporary site of Phum Snay in northern Cambodia, where the many skeletons discarded by looters bear the scars of fighting (Domett et al. 2011).
[1]
For Funan: ’They described a country to the south ruled by a king who resided in a palace in a walled settlement.’
[2]
’It has also been observed that the Chinese text designates Funan as a kuo, a term which should translate as "principality" rather than "kingdom". A kuo was usually of a limited extent and could even designate a fortified town (Stein, Le Lin-ye, p. 119).’
[3]
’The early sedentary people used copper and bronze tools from at least 1500 BC. One thousand years later, these people—or others like them—lived in fortified settlements, using iron tools, in sophisticated social systems made possible by the creation of a social surplus product based on efficient agriculture and animal husbandry.’
[4]
’We have a detailed description of an early South-east Asian trading state, following a visit to the Mekon Delta by Kang Tai, an an emissary of the Chinese emperor. Sent to explore a maritime trade route in the third century AD, he encountered a state controlled by a ruling dynasty, with its own legal and taxation systems, which kept written records, and defended cities.’
[5]
’This extraordinary site [Oc Eo] comprises a rectangular enceinte measuring 3 by 1.5 km. It lies behind five ramparts and four moats, and covers an area of 450 ha.’
[6]
’Nor should one overlook the extent of the moats and defences of Oc Eo, and the large brick structure which was built in its central area.’
[7]
However, O’Reilly has pointed out that the enclosure that surrounds Angkor Borei does not have any indication of having been used for military purposes.
[8]
[1]: (Higham 2012: 282) [2]: (Higham 2012b, p. 590) [3]: (Jacques and Lafond 2007, p. 46) [4]: (Tully 2005, p. 8) [5]: (Higham 2011, pp. 474-475) [6]: (Higham 2014, p. 279) [7]: (Higham 2014b, p. 342) [8]: (O’Reilly 2007, p. 107) |
||||||
|
’They described a country to the south ruled by a king who resided in a palace in a walled settlement.’
[1]
’It has also been observed that the Chinese text designates Funan as a kuo, a term which should translate as "principality" rather than "kingdom". A kuo was usually of a limited extent and could even designate a fortified town (Stein, Le Lin-ye, p. 119).’
[2]
’Nor should one overlook the extent of the moats and defences of Oc Eo, and the large brick structure which was built in its central area.’
[3]
’We have a detailed description of an early South-east Asian trading state, following a visit to the Mekon Delta by Kang Tai, an an emissary of the Chinese emperor. Sent to explore a maritime trade route in the third century AD, he encountered a state controlled by a ruling dynasty, with its own legal and taxation systems, which kept written records, and defended cities.’
[4]
[1]: (Higham 2012b, p. 590) [2]: (Jacques and Lafond 2007, p. 46) [3]: (Higham 2014b, p. 342) [4]: (Higham 2011, pp. 474-475) |
||||||
|
Prei Khmeng and Ak Yum and its brick predecessor occupied an area thats seem to have been ’associated with a fan-shaped area of rice fields (Hawken 2011). The orientation of the linear banks north of these temples and fields might well have served to converse or direct water into these irrigated fields, associated in all likelihood with the use of drought oxen or water buffaloes to draw a plough, are must more productive than broadcast rice and the use of the hoe or spade alone to turn the soil.’
[1]
[1]: (Higham 2014b, 295) |
||||||
|
’King Jayavarman II’s restlessness did not end when he moved his court to the Great Lake region. During his reign he would build three capitals, abandoning each before he made his final choice at Roluos. Regarding his move to Angkor, Michael Vickery has suggested that it resulted from military and political pressure from the hostile kingdom of Champa. Angkor was also remote from the coast of the South China Sea—and seaborne enemies such as the Javanese—with access hindered by the numerous sandbars and treacherous currents of the Mekong delta.’
[1]
’Military campaings were probably conducted in the Post-Classic period as they had been during the Classic Era, but on a lesser scale: it is doubtful if any king of Lovek or Udong could muster the armies that were fielded by rulers like Suryavarman II. There was no standing army - in times of war, the patron was expected to muster a force of his clients, and place himself or an officer designated by the king at the head. The arms that they bore were substantially like those wielded by Classic warriors, with the addition of firearms and canon (after 1600). Again the principle of five ruled, as there were five corps: the vanguard, the rear guard, the right flank, the left flank, and the central corps or main body of the army, where the king kept himself with his war elephants. These animals were strengthened magically from time to time by bring sprayed with water mixed with human bile (or so say our sources); magical ideas also led the warriors to cover themselves with protective amulets. The king would be surrounded by Brahmins who conducted ritual ablutions, and by soothsayers who were consulted on the placement of military camps and for auspicious days for military operations.’
[2]
’As the population in chiefly urban centers grew, so steps had to be taken to conserve and reticulate water. This was achieved by digging circular moats around settlements and allowing water to flow into the rice fields beyond. It is likely that such a system was used only to maintain the absence of wet season rains, and the moats would have also supplied the populace with water, defines, and aquatic food.’
[3]
’Groslier (1998[1986]: 262) argues that Jayavarman VII built Vat Nokor and Ta Prohm of Bati (in the Vat Bati cluster), both west of the Mekong, to establish a borderland and military bases against the Cham, with whom the Khmer were engaged in numerous conflicts in the south (Hendrickson 2007: 250).’
[4]
[1]: (Tully 2005, p. 21) [2]: (Coe 2003, p. 219) [3]: (Hingham 2012, p. 184) [4]: (Lustig 2009, p. 148) |
||||||
|
’King Jayavarman II’s restlessness did not end when he moved his court to the Great Lake region. During his reign he would build three capitals, abandoning each before he made his final choice at Roluos. Regarding his move to Angkor, Michael Vickery has suggested that it resulted from military and political pressure from the hostile kingdom of Champa. Angkor was also remote from the coast of the South China Sea—and seaborne enemies such as the Javanese—with access hindered by the numerous sandbars and treacherous currents of the Mekong delta.’
[1]
’Military campaings were probably conducted in the Post-Classic period as they had been during the Classic Era, but on a lesser scale: it is doubtful if any king of Lovek or Udong could muster the armies that were fielded by rulers like Suryavarman II. There was no standing army - in times of war, the patron was expected to muster a force of his clients, and place himself or an officer designated by the king at the head. The arms that they bore were substantially like those wielded by Classic warriors, with the addition of firearms and canon (after 1600). Again the principle of five ruled, as there were five corps: the vanguard, the rear guard, the right flank, the left flank, and the central corps or main body of the army, where the king kept himself with his war elephants. These animals were strengthened magically from time to time by bring sprayed with water mixed with human bile (or so say our sources); magical ideas also led the warriors to cover themselves with protective amulets. The king would be surrounded by Brahmins who conducted ritual ablutions, and by soothsayers who were consulted on the placement of military camps and for auspicious days for military operations.’
[2]
’As the population in chiefly urban centers grew, so steps had to be taken to conserve and reticulate water. This was achieved by digging circular moats around settlements and allowing water to flow into the rice fields beyond. It is likely that such a system was used only to maintain the absence of wet season rains, and the moats would have also supplied the populace with water, defines, and aquatic food.’
[3]
’Groslier (1998[1986]: 262) argues that Jayavarman VII built Vat Nokor and Ta Prohm of Bati (in the Vat Bati cluster), both west of the Mekong, to establish a borderland and military bases against the Cham, with whom the Khmer were engaged in numerous conflicts in the south (Hendrickson 2007: 250).’
[4]
[1]: (Tully 2005, p. 21) [2]: (Coe 2003, p. 219) [3]: (Hingham 2012, p. 184) [4]: (Lustig 2009, p. 148) |
||||||
|
’King Jayavarman II’s restlessness did not end when he moved his court to the Great Lake region. During his reign he would build three capitals, abandoning each before he made his final choice at Roluos. Regarding his move to Angkor, Michael Vickery has suggested that it resulted from military and political pressure from the hostile kingdom of Champa. Angkor was also remote from the coast of the South China Sea—and seaborne enemies such as the Javanese—with access hindered by the numerous sandbars and treacherous currents of the Mekong delta.’
[1]
’Military campaings were probably conducted in the Post-Classic period as they had been during the Classic Era, but on a lesser scale: it is doubtful if any king of Lovek or Udong could muster the armies that were fielded by rulers like Suryavarman II. There was no standing army - in times of war, the patron was expected to muster a force of his clients, and place himself or an officer designated by the king at the head. The arms that they bore were substantially like those wielded by Classic warriors, with the addition of firearms and canon (after 1600). Again the principle of five ruled, as there were five corps: the vanguard, the rear guard, the right flank, the left flank, and the central corps or main body of the army, where the king kept himself with his war elephants. These animals were strengthened magically from time to time by bring sprayed with water mixed with human bile (or so say our sources); magical ideas also led the warriors to cover themselves with protective amulets. The king would be surrounded by Brahmins who conducted ritual ablutions, and by soothsayers who were consulted on the placement of military camps and for auspicious days for military operations.’
[2]
’As the population in chiefly urban centers grew, so steps had to be taken to conserve and reticulate water. This was achieved by digging circular moats around settlements and allowing water to flow into the rice fields beyond. It is likely that such a system was used only to maintain the absence of wet season rains, and the moats would have also supplied the populace with water, defines, and aquatic food.’
[3]
’Groslier (1998[1986]: 262) argues that Jayavarman VII built Vat Nokor and Ta Prohm of Bati (in the Vat Bati cluster), both west of the Mekong, to establish a borderland and military bases against the Cham, with whom the Khmer were engaged in numerous conflicts in the south (Hendrickson 2007: 250).’
[4]
These settlements were probably still inhabited in the Late Angkor period.
[1]: (Tully 2005, p. 21) [2]: (Coe 2003, p. 219) [3]: (Hingham 2012, p. 184) [4]: (Lustig 2009, p. 148) |
||||||
|
’The initial move seems to have been to Srei Santhor, about 30 km (19 miles) northeast of Phnom Penh, at some time in the fourteenth century; then, briefly, to Phnom Penh itself. By about 1528, the Cambodian court under its first great Post-Angkorian king, Ang Chan I, had moved once and for all to the all to the Quatre Bras region, establishing a new capital at Lovek (Longvek), on the right bank of the Tonle Sap River, 50 km (30 miles) north of Phnom Penh. Love, like Udong and Phnom Penh- the town s that succeeded it as the capital- was thoroughly international, with foreign quarters for Malay, Japanese, and Chinese traders (there were as many as 3,000 of the last in the 1540s). There Ang Chan (who really did exist) built a golden palace and at least four major wats, erecting a huge, four-faced Buddha of wood, the stone foundation of which survive in one of the town’s vicars. The capital was fortified by earthen ramparts topped with palisades; these ramparts, which form a huge rectangle, are still visible.’
[1]
’Military campaings were probably conducted in the Post-Classic period as they had been during the Classic Era, but on a lesser scale: it is doubtful if any king of Lovek or Udong could muster the armies that were fielded by rulers like Suryavarman II. There was no standing army - in times of war, the patron was expected to muster a force of his clients, and place himself or an officer designated by the king at the head. The arms that they bore were substantially like those wielded by Classic warriors, with the addition of firearms and canon (after 1600). Again the principle of five ruled, as there were five corps: the vanguard, the rear guard, the right flank, the left flank, and the central corps or main body of the army, where the king kept himself with his war elephants. These animals were strengthened magically from time to time by bring sprayed with water mixed with human bile (or so say our sources); magical ideas also led the warriors to cover themselves with protective amulets. The king would be surrounded by Brahmins who conducted ritual ablutions, and by soothsayers who were consulted on the placement of military camps and for auspicious days for military operations.’ [2] [1]: (Coe 2003, pp. 208-209) [2]: (Coe 2003, p. 219) |
||||||
|
Convenience and pressures to reduce social tensions appear to have over-ridden considerations of defence in the location of housing from the early tenth century.
[1]
Ratu Boko - a palace compound converted into a hilltop fortress with defensive structures.
[2]
[1]: (Christie 1991, 35) [2]: (Soertano 2002, 67) |
||||||
|
It has been noted by historians that despite the aggressive military history from which Majapahit arose, its kraton was not fortified.
[1]
According to Miksic the Majapahit capital did not seem to have any sort of defensive perimeter.
[2]
This does not mean that no town or fort in Majapahit had any type of defensive fortification. Indian military terms surviving in Javanese include ’fortress’ and ’siege’.
[3]
[1]: (Hall 1996, 96) [2]: (Miksic 2000, 115) [3]: (Kumara 2007, 161) Sasiprabha Kumara. 2007. Sanskrit Across Cultures. Special Centre for Sanskrit Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University. New Delhi. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Settlements were constructed in the mountains: ’War! That is a word that made every Truk heart beat faster in olden times. Truk was one big battlefield. Island fought against island, tribe against tribe. On one day two villages were co-operating; on the next day they were fighting each other. There was constant killing in an ever changing situation. The entire population lived on the mountains in order to be protected against attacks by the enemy. Still today one sees on the mountains, along the mountain slopes, long stone walls, or indeed complete fortifications with entrances. Sad relics of that peaceless and lawless time. The wirasen moun (battlefield) was readied at the boundary of the enemy tribe and the bush cut down so that one could have a good view. Here the opponents often came together in order to measure each other. The islanders’ main method of fighting, however, was surprise attack and stealing up in the night. [Page 114] Woe to the one who /105/ fell into the hands of such who were sneaking about. Whether man, woman, or child, his throat was cut without mercy. It is told about one warrior that while on an expedition he encountered on the way a child from the enemy tribe. He took it by the legs and struck its head against a tree so that blood and brains spurted about. Houses were set afire, trees cut down, animals killed; in short, each side sought to do as much harm to the other one as possible. Spies were sent out to discover the mood and location of the enemy. Sometimes the enemy was left in peace for a time in order to lull him into feeling secure. Then when the women of the enemy tribe unsuspectingly went fishing at night they were attacked and slaughtered in the water. Or at night the people secretly traveled past the enemy island to another one and then came back in the morning. The enemy was deceived by the direction from which the vessels came and calmly let the crew land to destroy them.’
[1]
[1]: Bollig, Laurentius 1927. “Inhabitants Of The Truk Islands: Religion, Life And A Short Grammar Of A Micronesian People”, 113 |
||||||
|
Settlements were constructed in the mountains: ’War! That is a word that made every Truk heart beat faster in olden times. Truk was one big battlefield. Island fought against island, tribe against tribe. On one day two villages were co-operating; on the next day they were fighting each other. There was constant killing in an ever changing situation. The entire population lived on the mountains in order to be protected against attacks by the enemy. Still today one sees on the mountains, along the mountain slopes, long stone walls, or indeed complete fortifications with entrances. Sad relics of that peaceless and lawless time. The wirasen moun (battlefield) was readied at the boundary of the enemy tribe and the bush cut down so that one could have a good view. Here the opponents often came together in order to measure each other. The islanders’ main method of fighting, however, was surprise attack and stealing up in the night. [Page 114] Woe to the one who /105/ fell into the hands of such who were sneaking about. Whether man, woman, or child, his throat was cut without mercy. It is told about one warrior that while on an expedition he encountered on the way a child from the enemy tribe. He took it by the legs and struck its head against a tree so that blood and brains spurted about. Houses were set afire, trees cut down, animals killed; in short, each side sought to do as much harm to the other one as possible. Spies were sent out to discover the mood and location of the enemy. Sometimes the enemy was left in peace for a time in order to lull him into feeling secure. Then when the women of the enemy tribe unsuspectingly went fishing at night they were attacked and slaughtered in the water. Or at night the people secretly traveled past the enemy island to another one and then came back in the morning. The enemy was deceived by the direction from which the vessels came and calmly let the crew land to destroy them.’
[1]
[1]: Bollig, Laurentius 1927. “Inhabitants Of The Truk Islands: Religion, Life And A Short Grammar Of A Micronesian People”, 113 |
||||||
|
The occupation of defensible locations such as steep-sided coastal promontories and hill tops is common during the Final Neolithic (ca. 4500-3000 BCE). The concern of security has been interpreted as the result of " local competition within and/or between sites, manifest in a developing sense of territoriality and resource circumscription, perhaps caused or exacerbated by a major shift towards greater climatic uncertainty that may occur around this time."
[1]
[1]: Tomkins, P. 2008. "Time, space and the reinvention of the Cretan Neolithic," in Isaakidou, V. and Tomkins, P. D. (eds), Escaping the Labyrinth. The Cretan Neolithic in Context, Sheffiled, 38. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Settlements in high elevations, in well defensible sites, are very common during this period. Many of these were surrounded by a cyclopean fortification wall.
[1]
[2]
Other sites have the character of acropolis and are more easily accessible; most would form the center of historic cities (e.g. Prinias, Dreros, Gortyn). The Late Minoan IIIC and Subminoan periods are eras of significant stress and uncertainty and this is reflected in the distribution of sites. To quote Hallager "There is no doubt that this question must be seen in relation to what was going on in Europe and especially the eastern Mediterranean around 1200 BC, with the fall of the great powers - the Hittites, the Assyrian, the weakening of Egypt, the Sea Peoples, possibly migrations from central Europe, and so on. These events, which have been discussed in the scholarly world for more than a century, clearly affected Crete in that the coast was no longer a safe place to live."
[3]
[1]: Nowicki, K. 2000. Defensible Sites in Crete c. 1200-800 B.C. (LM IIIB/IIIC Through Early Geometric) (Aegeaum 21, Liège, 223-41 [2]: Kanta, A. 2001."Cretan refuge settlements:problems and historical implications within the wider context of the Eastern Mediterranean towards the end of the Bronze Age," in Karageorgis, V. and Morri, C. E. (eds), Defensible Settlements of the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean after c. 1200 B.C., Nicosia, 13-21. [3]: Hallager, E. 2010. "Crete," in Cline, E. H. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean, Oxford, 157-58. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
"Other sites with Qotakalli pottery are found in the Sacred Valley, as well as in its larger side valleys. The sites in the main valley tend to be quite small and are usually located 200 to 300 meters above the valley floor, in areas with natural defense that are close to small streams."
[1]
For Covey, Qotakalli designates the period after c.400 CE.
[2]
AD: coded as inferred present in the period 200-400 CE. Despite the lack of archaeological confirmation, the presence of settlements in a defensive position can be inferred from the continuity between 200-400 and 400-500CE, which are considered the same period by Bauer.
[1]: (Covey 2006, 66) [2]: (Covey 2006, 59) |
||||||
|
"Other sites with Qotakalli pottery are found in the Sacred Valley, as well as in its larger side valleys. The sites in the main valley tend to be quite small and are usually located 200 to 300 meters above the valley floor, in areas with natural defense that are close to small streams."
[1]
For Covey, Qotakalli designates the period after c.400 CE.
[2]
AD: coded as inferred present in the period 200-400 CE. Despite the lack of archaeological confirmation, the presence of settlements in a defensive position can be inferred from the continuity between 200-400 and 400-500CE, which are considered the same period by Bauer.
[1]: (Covey 2006, 66) [2]: (Covey 2006, 59) |
||||||
|
"Other sites with Qotakalli pottery are found in the Sacred Valley, as well as in its larger side valleys. The sites in the main valley tend to be quite small and are usually located 200 to 300 meters above the valley floor, in areas with natural defense that are close to small streams."
[1]
[1]: (Covey 2006, 66) |
||||||
|
"The Wari sites in Moquegua are located on the summit and slopes of Cerro Baúl and Cerro Mejía, which are adjacent mountains. The most sumptuous monumental architecture and highest status elite architecture were located on the peaks. Positioned to control the sacred pinnacles, these locales also provided a defensive location on the Wari-Tiwanaku frontier."
[1]
[1]: (McEwan and Williams in Bergh 2012, 75) |
||||||
|
"Those settlements were generally unfortified and lay in open positions, a pattern at variance with the defensive planning of most highland settlements of the time, even places nearby."
[1]
"Several sites in remote parts of the southern Cuzco Basin were established on high ridges after AD 1000. Some of these settlements were located far from permanent water sources, and many were in areas with natural defenses. At least one of these, Pungurhuaylla, was walled (fig.5.12). These sites were established after the decline of the Wari and had little or no Inca pottery present, perhaps indicating a temporary - and unsuccessful - attempt by some groups in more distant and difficult-to-reach locations to remain independent of the Cusco Basin polity."
[2]
Settlements in a defensive position are recorded in the Vilcanota valley, not in the Killke polity itself but a group of quasi-polities nearby.
[3]
"Except for Tipón - a fortified site located in a depopulated buffer zone between the Inka and Pinaw-Muyna polities- these sites are large villages or towns located close to the valley bottom, with no apparent defensive works."
[4]
[1]: (D’Altroy 2014, 79) [2]: (Covey 2006, 106) [3]: (Covey 2006b, 115) [4]: (Covey 2006b, 117) |
||||||
|
"Within the immediate Cuzco Valley, Dwyer (1971: 24-40, 145-6) reports that most Late Intermediate Period sites (which include settlements measuring between about 12 and 60 hectares) are not found in defensive settings, but tend to occur rather closely spaced atop low ridges or on intermediate slopes at no great distacne above the valley floor."
[1]
Tipón is a site located in a defensive position, controlled by the Lucre Basin Polity. "Another impressive early estate was constructed at Tipón. In the Killke era, prior to the rise of the imperial Incas, the site was a fortified settlement high above the abandoned valley floor between the Cuzco and Lucre basins (Bauer and Covey 2004: 86-7). One of the very few defensively constructed late prehistoric sites in the area, it was reportedly captured by Wiraqocha Inka, who subsequently converted it into a personal holding."
[2]
[1]: (Parsons and Hastings 1988, 224) [2]: (D’Altroy 2014, 220) |
||||||
|
"Frontal attack by shock troops was the preferred method of taking a stronghold in Andean war, so forts were designed to repel waves of soldiers in close combat. They usually consisted of walled enclosures with broad open areas and spare architecture, set on hilltops or at the crest of steep slopes."
[1]
[1]: (D’Altroy 2014, 331) |
||||||
|
"The great economic historian Carande, in the title of a famous essay, called Seville ‘a fortress and a market’, and it is a useful reminder of the twin functions of the Spanish town."
[1]
Fortress towns.
[2]
[1]: (Casey 2002, 115-6) Casey, James. 2002. Early Modern Spain: A Social History. New York: Routledge. https://www.zotero.org/groups/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/2SNTRSWT [2]: (Casey 2002, 3 Casey, James. 2002. Early Modern Spain: A Social History. New York: Routledge. https://www.zotero.org/groups/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/2SNTRSWT |
||||||
|
Regarding the granitic hills of Northern Karnataka: "Although, from below, their stony landscapes make the hills appear rather inhospitable, those who make the effort to climb them are often rewarded with the discovery of surprisingly sizeable and protected plateaux that are invisible from the lower reaches. It is here, on the hill-top plateaux, that we find the most substantial evidence for Neolithic habitation [...] [The inhabitants] almost certainly benefited from the commanding views these sites provided over very large stretches of terrain"
[1]
. NOTE, however, that the author does not explicitly say that these settlements were built in these locations for defensive purposes.
[1]: N. Boivin, Landscape and Cosmology in the South Indian Neolithic: New Perspectives on the Deccan Ashmounds (2004), in Cambridge Archaeological Journal 14:2, pp. 235-257 |
||||||
|
Regarding the granitic hills of Northern Karnataka: "Although, from below, their stony landscapes make the hills appear rather inhospitable, those who make the effort to climb them are often rewarded with the discovery of surprisingly sizeable and protected plateaux that are invisible from the lower reaches. It is here, on the hill-top plateaux, that we find the most substantial evidence for Neolithic habitation [...] [The inhabitants] almost certainly benefited from the commanding views these sites provided over very large stretches of terrain"
[1]
. NOTE, however, that the author does not explicitly say that these settlements were built in these locations for defensive purposes.
[1]: N. Boivin, Landscape and Cosmology in the South Indian Neolithic: New Perspectives on the Deccan Ashmounds (2004), in Cambridge Archaeological Journal 14:2, pp. 235-257 |
||||||
|
Lower Deccan (Krishna-Tungabhadra River Valleys; Krishna-Tungabhadra Doab) 1100-100 BCE: "Preferred settlement location are on high hilltops or on the slopes of outcrops, with some evidence for walls and other defensive features."
[1]
[1]: (? 2002, 365)? South Indian Iron Age. Peter N Peregrine. Melvin Ember. eds. 2002. Encyclopedia of Prehistory. Volume 8: South and Southwest Asia. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. New York. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Lower Deccan (Krishna-Tungabhadra River Valleys; Krishna-Tungabhadra Doab) 1100-100 BCE: "Preferred settlement location are on high hilltops or on the slopes of outcrops, with some evidence for walls and other defensive features."
[1]
[1]: (? 2002, 365)? South Indian Iron Age. Peter N Peregrine. Melvin Ember. eds. 2002. Encyclopedia of Prehistory. Volume 8: South and Southwest Asia. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. New York. |
||||||
|
Commenting on Jean Deloche’s ’Studies on Fortification in India’ a book reviewer says that fort construction "with long-term building and modification programs ... became the focal point for local populations as well as for their leaders" and often were "placed at points on the landscape that already were natural strongholds and places of ritual devolution".
[1]
[1]: (Smith 2010, 273) Monica L Smith. January 2010. Journal of the American Oriental Society. 130.2. Studies on Fortification in India. Collection Indologie, vol. 104. Four Forts of the Deccan vol. 111. Senji (Gingee): A Fortified City in the Tamil Country. vol. 101 by Jean Deloche. |
||||||
|
Commenting on Jean Deloche’s ’Studies on Fortification in India’ a book reviewer says that fort construction "with long-term building and modification programs ... became the focal point for local populations as well as for their leaders" and often were "placed at points on the landscape that already were natural strongholds and places of ritual devolution".
[1]
There were "Sites of royal importance with fortifications, e.g. Pauni, Nagaradhan, Bilav-Kuji nala, Ghugusgad, etc."
[2]
however, what those fortification were is not stated.
[1]: (Smith 2010, 273) Monica L Smith. January 2010. Journal of the American Oriental Society. 130.2. Studies on Fortification in India. Collection Indologie, vol. 104. Four Forts of the Deccan vol. 111. Senji (Gingee): A Fortified City in the Tamil Country. vol. 101 by Jean Deloche. [2]: (Sawant 2009) Reshma Sawant. 2008. ‘State Formation Process In The Vidarbha During The Vakataka Period’. Bulletin of the Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute 68-69: 137-162. |
||||||
|
Commenting on Jean Deloche’s ’Studies on Fortification in India’ a book reviewer says that fort construction "with long-term building and modification programs ... became the focal point for local populations as well as for their leaders" and often were "placed at points on the landscape that already were natural strongholds and places of ritual devolution".
[1]
The Banavasi fort was partly protected by the river Varada
[2]
.
[1]: (Smith 2010, 273) Monica L Smith. January 2010. Journal of the American Oriental Society. 130.2. Studies on Fortification in India. Collection Indologie, vol. 104. Four Forts of the Deccan vol. 111. Senji (Gingee): A Fortified City in the Tamil Country. vol. 101 by Jean Deloche. [2]: S.K. Joshi, Defense Architecture of the Kadambas, in B.R. Gopal and N.S. Tharanatha, Kadambas: Their History and Culture (1996), p. 74 |
||||||
|
Commenting on Jean Deloche’s ’Studies on Fortification in India’ a book reviewer says that fort construction "with long-term building and modification programs ... became the focal point for local populations as well as for their leaders" and often were "placed at points on the landscape that already were natural strongholds and places of ritual devolution".
[1]
[1]: (Smith 2010, 273) Monica L Smith. January 2010. Journal of the American Oriental Society. 130.2. Studies on Fortification in India. Collection Indologie, vol. 104. Four Forts of the Deccan vol. 111. Senji (Gingee): A Fortified City in the Tamil Country. vol. 101 by Jean Deloche. |
||||||
|
Commenting on Jean Deloche’s ’Studies on Fortification in India’ a book reviewer says that fort construction "with long-term building and modification programs ... became the focal point for local populations as well as for their leaders" and often were "placed at points on the landscape that already were natural strongholds and places of ritual devolution".
[1]
The capital of Malkhed was protected on three sides by rivers, and on the fourth side by a moat
[2]
.
[1]: (Smith 2010, 273) Monica L Smith. January 2010. Journal of the American Oriental Society. 130.2. Studies on Fortification in India. Collection Indologie, vol. 104. Four Forts of the Deccan vol. 111. Senji (Gingee): A Fortified City in the Tamil Country. vol. 101 by Jean Deloche. [2]: Jayashri Mishra, Social and Economic Conditions Under the Imperial Rashtrakutas (1992), p. 206 |
||||||
|
Commenting on Jean Deloche’s ’Studies on Fortification in India’ a book reviewer says that fort construction "with long-term building and modification programs ... became the focal point for local populations as well as for their leaders" and often were "placed at points on the landscape that already were natural strongholds and places of ritual devolution".
[1]
[1]: (Smith 2010, 273) Monica L Smith. January 2010. Journal of the American Oriental Society. 130.2. Studies on Fortification in India. Collection Indologie, vol. 104. Four Forts of the Deccan vol. 111. Senji (Gingee): A Fortified City in the Tamil Country. vol. 101 by Jean Deloche. |
||||||
|
Commenting on Jean Deloche’s ’Studies on Fortification in India’ a book reviewer says that fort construction "with long-term building and modification programs ... became the focal point for local populations as well as for their leaders" and often were "placed at points on the landscape that already were natural strongholds and places of ritual devolution".
[1]
[1]: (Smith 2010, 273) Monica L Smith. January 2010. Journal of the American Oriental Society. 130.2. Studies on Fortification in India. Collection Indologie, vol. 104. Four Forts of the Deccan vol. 111. Senji (Gingee): A Fortified City in the Tamil Country. vol. 101 by Jean Deloche. |
||||||
|
Commenting on Jean Deloche’s ’Studies on Fortification in India’ a book reviewer says that fort construction "with long-term building and modification programs ... became the focal point for local populations as well as for their leaders" and often were "placed at points on the landscape that already were natural strongholds and places of ritual devolution".
[1]
[1]: (Smith 2010, 273) Monica L Smith. January 2010. Journal of the American Oriental Society. 130.2. Studies on Fortification in India. Collection Indologie, vol. 104. Four Forts of the Deccan vol. 111. Senji (Gingee): A Fortified City in the Tamil Country. vol. 101 by Jean Deloche. |
||||||
|
Domingo Paes commented of Indian rulers, such as that of the Vijayanagara: "if a city is stituated at the extremity of his territory he gives his consent to its having stone walls, but never the towns; so that they make fortresses of the cities but not the towns."
[1]
[1]: (Howes 2003, 45) Jennifer Howes. 2003. The Courts of Pre-colonial South India: Material Culture and Kingship. RoutledgeCurzon. London. |
||||||
|
Castles on hills inherited from previous polities.
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
By this period villages were often located on defensible hilltops, away from major routes, and were fortified "either by ravines or by artificial earthworks and multiple palisades," and even watchtowers. Also, "the placement of houses within a palisade may also have been motivated by defensive considerations" and to create defensible corridors.
[1]
[2]
[1]: (Snow 1994: 52) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/TQ4KR3AE. [2]: (Engelbrecht 2003: 92) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/FJ3EAI76. |
||||||
|
"Village sites were usually located on high banks and were palisaded, indicating defensive priorities. Iroquois men frequently went on extensive hunting forays, leaving their women and children unprotected. This settlement pattern probably provided the best defensive protection under the circumstances."
[1]
"Villages were built on elevated terraces in close proximity to streams or lakes and were secured by log palisades."
[2]
[3]
[1]: Evaneshko 1975, 19 [2]: Reid 1996, 2 [3]: (Jones 2004, 56) Jones, David. 2004. Native North American Armor, Shields, and Fortifications. Austin: University of Texas Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/collectionKey/943RGM7A/itemKey/HABDQG2T |
||||||
|
"Village sites were usually located on high banks and were palisaded, indicating defensive priorities. Iroquois men frequently went on extensive hunting forays, leaving their women and children unprotected. This settlement pattern probably provided the best defensive protection under the circumstances."
[1]
"Villages were built on elevated terraces in close proximity to streams or lakes and were secured by log palisades."
[2]
[1]: Evaneshko 1975, 19 [2]: Reid 1996, 2 |
||||||
|
Where possible, settlements were built on top of hills, or "tells". Where the landscape lacked such features, freestanding walls were built, or other features of the landscape used: "As indicated in the previous chapter the major fortified settlements comprising the first three tiers of settlement within the kingdom of Ashkelon were defended in a nearly identical fashion featuring rectilinear plans enclosed by earthen ramparts, fosses, and fortification walls. These settlements seem to have been predominantly situated along wadis in order, I believe, to take advantage of the increased defensive capability which the only regular feature of the landscape could provide (on at least one side of the settlement)."
[1]
[1]: Burke (2004:259-260). |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
"The architectural program of the Omrides seems to have been conceived in order to serve their territorial ambitions: casemate forts or administrative centers were built on the borders of the kingdom (figs. 18, 19): Har Adir (and possibly Tel Harashim) facing Tyre; Hazor and En Gev facing the territory of Aram Damascus; Ramoth-gilead opposite Aram Damascus in the Bashan; Jahaz and Ataroth facing Moabite Dibon; and Gezer facing the Philistine city-states. Except for the capital Samaria, only Jezreel seems to have been located in the heartland of Israel. The Omride compound there could have been erected as a center of command in the demographically Canaanite valley and as a military post related to the chariot force of the kingdom (Cantrell 2011)."
[1]
[1]: Finkelstein (2013:109) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Present in previous and subsequent periods.
|
||||||
|
There were garrison towns which were strategically located on high lying ground. Many cities were not fortified and lacked walls. Major temples were fortified structures.
|
||||||
|
‘I have noticed that the Garos, particularly those living in the interior of the hills, like more to live on the slopes of the hills than in the plains of the valley. There are villages wherefrom they are to travel up and down of the hills for three days or more to go to a market place. It appears that they do not grudge it even though they cross very high hills.’
[1]
‘“The villages were irregular, hidden in hollows of the hills or on clinging spurs surrounded by jungle covered heights. They were so covered by bamboos and tall trees and as such houses could not be easily located except through the sound or clamour coming from the bottom of the gorge. The paths were zigzag across the peaks or descend through the craggy sharp hillsides. They were susceptible to regular animal depredation - wild elephants, tigers, etc.” which remain as a scourge in many Garo villages even today.’
[2]
‘Unlike other hill tribes, such as the Nagas and the Lushais, who build their villages high up on the slopes of hills, the Garos construct theirs in valleys or in depressions on the hillsides, close to running water. They attach great importance to pure water, and it is quite the exception for them to live at any distance from a good stream. The sites chosen for the houses are nevertheless generally steep, and the villages are rarely on flat ground.’
[3]
[1]: Sinha, Tarunchandra 1966. “Psyche Of The Garos”, 9 [2]: Momin, A. G. 1995. “Economic Changes In Garo Hills: Some Perspectives”, 94 [3]: Playfair, Alan 1909. “Garo”, 38 |
||||||
|
‘I have noticed that the Garos, particularly those living in the interior of the hills, like more to live on the slopes of the hills than in the plains of the valley. There are villages wherefrom they are to travel up and down of the hills for three days or more to go to a market place. It appears that they do not grudge it even though they cross very high hills.’
[1]
‘“The villages were irregular, hidden in hollows of the hills or on clinging spurs surrounded by jungle covered heights. They were so covered by bamboos and tall trees and as such houses could not be easily located except through the sound or clamour coming from the bottom of the gorge. The paths were zigzag across the peaks or descend through the craggy sharp hillsides. They were susceptible to regular animal depredation - wild elephants, tigers, etc.” which remain as a scourge in many Garo villages even today.’
[2]
‘Unlike other hill tribes, such as the Nagas and the Lushais, who build their villages high up on the slopes of hills, the Garos construct theirs in valleys or in depressions on the hillsides, close to running water. They attach great importance to pure water, and it is quite the exception for them to live at any distance from a good stream. The sites chosen for the houses are nevertheless generally steep, and the villages are rarely on flat ground.’
[3]
[1]: Sinha, Tarunchandra 1966. “Psyche Of The Garos”, 9 [2]: Momin, A. G. 1995. “Economic Changes In Garo Hills: Some Perspectives”, 94 [3]: Playfair, Alan 1909. “Garo”, 38 |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
The sources reviewed so far are silent on the military relevance of human settlements.
|
||||||
|
Amory describes fortifications and strongholds, but says little about the possible strategic location of larger manors: ’Larger groups (sixteen to eighteen members and on up) readily developed a ‘siege mentality’, and would sometimes entrench themselves, not in caves, but in fortified earthworks or strongholds, thrown up against the inroads of their enemies. Both Óspakr and Hörðr had such fortifications built for themselves, their wives and families, and their men, Hörðr’s island retreat of wood and turf being virtually impregnable. Though Óspakr’s earthworks enclosed a farm with two cows, where his wife and son lived, these fortifications were not internally self-sustaining but were chiefly designed for receiving stolen goods, viz., the produce of the surrounding countryside, and for staging last-ditch defenses. It is remarkable but not unintelligible that the sizeable outlaw colony on the tiny island of Geirshólmr, under the leadership of Hörðr Grímkelsson and his foster-brother Geirr Grímsson, seems never to have engaged in animal husbandry of any sort on the island, or gone fishing in the surrounding waters, but instead preferred to launch expedition after expedition to the mainland in order to rustle from the rich coastal farms the cattle and sheep that it lacked; these would be slaughtered at once for its consumption. One may well think that cattle- and sheep-rustling was a perfectly suitable occupation for outlaws, but they were undercutting themselves by their total dependence on the mainland, and finally allowed themselves to be lured to shore by promises of freedom and were put to death in batches by a coalition of farmers who were lying in wait to dispatch them. So, at any rate, the story of the ‘Hólmverjar’ goes in Harðar saga Grímkelssonar (chs 34ff.). The colony was eradicated in three years’ time without the mainland farmers’ even having to assault the impregnable hall of Hörðr on one cliffside of the island.’
[1]
But it seems likely that the location of manors attached to powerful chieftains and their retainers was chosen with potential attacks in mind. [As far as I know, there are no examples of lords’ residences being deliberately located in defensive positions. They could be located in strategic positions, however, and were often fortified.]
[1]: (Amory 1992, 196) Amory, Frederic. 1992. The Medieval Icelandic Outlaw: Lifestyle, Saga, and Legend. Middlesex: Hisarlik Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/collectionKey/8FGVBVMM/itemKey/BH4V87MW |
||||||
|
Amory describes fortifications and strongholds, but says little about the possible strategic location of larger manors: ’Larger groups (sixteen to eighteen members and on up) readily developed a ‘siege mentality’, and would sometimes entrench themselves, not in caves, but in fortified earthworks or strongholds, thrown up against the inroads of their enemies. Both Óspakr and Hörðr had such fortifications built for themselves, their wives and families, and their men, Hörðr’s island retreat of wood and turf being virtually impregnable. Though Óspakr’s earthworks enclosed a farm with two cows, where his wife and son lived, these fortifications were not internally self-sustaining but were chiefly designed for receiving stolen goods, viz., the produce of the surrounding countryside, and for staging last-ditch defenses. It is remarkable but not unintelligible that the sizeable outlaw colony on the tiny island of Geirshólmr, under the leadership of Hörðr Grímkelsson and his foster-brother Geirr Grímsson, seems never to have engaged in animal husbandry of any sort on the island, or gone fishing in the surrounding waters, but instead preferred to launch expedition after expedition to the mainland in order to rustle from the rich coastal farms the cattle and sheep that it lacked; these would be slaughtered at once for its consumption. One may well think that cattle- and sheep-rustling was a perfectly suitable occupation for outlaws, but they were undercutting themselves by their total dependence on the mainland, and finally allowed themselves to be lured to shore by promises of freedom and were put to death in batches by a coalition of farmers who were lying in wait to dispatch them. So, at any rate, the story of the ‘Hólmverjar’ goes in Harðar saga Grímkelssonar (chs 34ff.). The colony was eradicated in three years’ time without the mainland farmers’ even having to assault the impregnable hall of Hörðr on one cliffside of the island.’
[1]
But it seems likely that the location of manors attached to powerful chieftains and their retainers was chosen with potential attacks in mind. [As far as I know, there are no examples of lords’ residences being deliberately located in defensive positions. They could be located in strategic positions, however, and were often fortified.]
[1]: (Amory 1992, 196) Amory, Frederic. 1992. The Medieval Icelandic Outlaw: Lifestyle, Saga, and Legend. Middlesex: Hisarlik Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/collectionKey/8FGVBVMM/itemKey/BH4V87MW |
||||||
|
Inferred absent from lack of evidence of significant warfare.
|
||||||
|
Inferred absent from lack of evidence of significant warfare.
|
||||||
|
Inferred absent from lack of evidence of significant warfare.
|
||||||
|
Inferred absent from lack of evidence of significant warfare.
|
||||||
|
inferred absent due to lack of evidence for warfare
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
inferred due to previous polities and the account below of architects designing citadels with walls and moats
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
"Basha al-Din Sam erected strong fortresses in Ghur, the Garmsir, Gharchistan and Herat, keeping strategic needs in view."
[1]
[1]: (Nizami 1999, 189) K A Nizami. The Ghurids. M S Asimov. C E Bosworth. eds. 1999. History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume IV. Part One. Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited. Delhi. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
No archaeological evidence for this. Moreover, the scholarly consensus is that the Jomon were relatively peaceful.
|
||||||
|
No archaeological evidence for this. Moreover, the scholarly consensus is that the Jomon were relatively peaceful.
|
||||||
|
No archaeological evidence for this. Moreover, the scholarly consensus is that the Jomon were relatively peaceful.
|
||||||
|
No archaeological evidence for this. Moreover, the scholarly consensus is that the Jomon were relatively peaceful.
|
||||||
|
No archaeological evidence for this. Moreover, the scholarly consensus is that the Jomon were relatively peaceful.
|
||||||
|
No archaeological evidence for this. Moreover, the scholarly consensus is that the Jomon were relatively peaceful.
|
||||||
|
"Unlike the walled towns of China and Korea, fortified places in Japan tended to be isolated military outposts. These yamashiro (mountain castles) were hilltop fortresses consisting only of wooden stockades, gates and towers, joined to one another across valleys and peaks to form a complex defensive arrangement. With no stone or mudbrick walls to batter down, these castles were almost always overcome by infantry assault, often supported by arson attacks launched by fire arrows."
[1]
[1]: (Turnball 2002) Turnball, S. 2002. Siege Weapons of the Far East (1): AD 612-1300. Osprey Publishing. |
||||||
|
Discussing the location of the new capital at Kyoto’Apart from its geomantic virtues, Uta was indeed in many ways well situated for a capital city. The steep, thickly timbered hills and mountains on the east, west, and north formed a skyline generally between 1,500 and 2,500 feet above the basin floor and in combination with the lake and marsh region known as Ogura noike to the south (now reclaimed and dry) and the river systems that converged on that area (chiefly the Kamo from the northeast, the Katsura from the northwest, and the Uji from the east) provided defensible positions against hostile attack.
[1]
"Unlike the walled towns of China and Korea, fortified places in Japan tended to be isolated military outposts. These yamashiro (mountain castles) were hilltop fortresses consisting only of wooden stockades, gates and towers, joined to one another across valleys and peaks to form a complex defensive arrangement. With no stone or mudbrick walls to batter down, these castles were almost always overcome by infantry assault, often supported by arson attacks launched by fire arrows."
[2]
[1]: Shively, Donald H. and McCullough, William H. 2008. The Cambridge History of Japan Volume 2: Heian Japan. Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press.p.98-99 [2]: (Turnball 2002) Turnball, S. 2002. Siege Weapons of the Far East (1): AD 612-1300. Osprey Publishing. |
||||||
|
‘Kamakura fronted on to the sea and was surrounded on three sides by mountains with the only access by land being a few easily defensible mountain passes or man-made tunnels carved out of soft rock. A long earthwork that followed the line of the most prominent ridge augmented these natural fortification’
[1]
"Unlike the walled towns of China and Korea, fortified places in Japan tended to be isolated military outposts. These yamashiro (mountain castles) were hilltop fortresses consisting only of wooden stockades, gates and towers, joined to one another across valleys and peaks to form a complex defensive arrangement."
[2]
[1]: Turnbull, Stephen. 2008. Japanese Castles AD 250--1540. Vol. 74. Osprey Publishing. P.18. [2]: (Turnball 2002) Turnball, S. 2002. Siege Weapons of the Far East (1): AD 612-1300. Osprey Publishing. |
||||||
|
’elevated shiro built during the late Muromachi and Momoyama periods’.
[1]
"Unlike the walled towns of China and Korea, fortified places in Japan tended to be isolated military outposts. These yamashiro (mountain castles) were hilltop fortresses consisting only of wooden stockades, gates and towers, joined to one another across valleys and peaks to form a complex defensive arrangement."
[2]
[1]: Deal, William E. 2005. Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press. p.173-74. [2]: (Turnball 2002) Turnball, S. 2002. Siege Weapons of the Far East (1): AD 612-1300. Osprey Publishing. |
||||||
|
numerous castles attest to this
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
’After the feudal system was reorganized by the Tokugawa shogunate, castles (shiro) were erected in the center of a daimyo’s domain, so they would be easily accessible. Without natural defenses such as hills and plateaus, these structures required additional protection compared with the elevated shiro built during the late Muromachi and Momoyama periods.’, however settlements in defensive positions would still have been in use.’
[1]
Castles continued to be important despite the long period of peace.
[2]
[1]: Deal, William E. 2005. Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press.p.174. [2]: Deal, William E. 2005. Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press.p.318. |
||||||
|
"That portion which followed the chief orang kaya of the tribe, and whose family has for many generations produced its chief, settled at Lundu, which has now become a beautiful fortified village, and from which the gallant old chief has frequently made successful expeditions against his hereditary enemies."
[1]
"...in June, 1857, [Charles Brooke] launched his first major expedition against the fortified longhouse of Rentap on the summit of Mount Sadok."
[2]
[1]: Low 1848, 166 [2]: Pringe 1968, 177 |
||||||
|
That portion which followed the chief orang kaya of the tribe, and whose family has for many generations produced its chief, settled at Lundu, which has now become a beautiful fortified village, and from which the gallant old chief has frequently made successful expeditions against his hereditary enemies.
[1]
...in June, 1857, [Charles Brooke] launched his first major expedition against the fortified longhouse of Rentap on the summit of Mount Sadok.
[2]
[1]: Low 1848, 166 [2]: Pringe 1968, 177 |
||||||
|
not yet found in settlements such as Göbekli Tepe
|
||||||
|
Güvercinkayası was located on the top of a steep rock formation
[1]
. "Mersin-Yumuktepe has been surrounded by massive city wall measuring about a meter thick, which was offset at regular distances and had slit windows at regular intervals from which defenders could safely shoot enemies. This wall was complete with a city gate flanked by two towers. To the East of the city gate, a series of domestic residences was built up against the city wall, each consisting of a front and a back room. The back rooms were about nine to fifteen square meters and might have served as living rooms of nuclear households, Garstang suggestets that they might have been inhabited by soldiers with their families."
[1]
[1]: Ancient Anatolia, 10,000-323 B.C.E, S.R. Steadman, G.McMahon, Oxford University Press, 2011. Chapter 36 |
||||||
|
"At some point between Early Bronze II and Early Bronze III, or at ca. 2300-2200, dramatic changes took place again. Most Early Bronze Age II sites in Anatolia were overcome by massive and violent destructions and these disasters brought an end to the EB II period. Intrusion into the area by Indo-Europeans has been theorized as the cause, but there may have been other foreign or even indigenous elements on the move that are as yet unknown.
[1]
[1]: Joukowsky M. S., "Early Turkey. An Introduction to the Archeology of Anatolia from Prehistory through the Lydian Period", USA 1996, p. 145." |
||||||
|
‘judging from the fact that in the Late Bronze I (Period V B, 1750-1600 b.c.e.), a town gate was built in the Arslantepe earthen wall defense system, flanked by two bipartite quadrangular towers, which was highly reminiscent of similar central Anatolian gates, such as those at AliŞar or Boğazköy (Palmieri 1978). ... this fortification system arrangement remained unchanged throughout the imperial Hittite and Neo-Hittite periods’
|
||||||
|
‘judging from the fact that in the Late Bronze I (Period V B, 1750-1600 b.c.e.), a town gate was built in the Arslantepe earthen wall defense system, flanked by two bipartite quadrangular towers, which was highly reminiscent of similar central Anatolian gates, such as those at AliŞar or Boğazköy (Palmieri 1978). ... this fortification system arrangement remained unchanged throughout the imperial Hittite and Neo-Hittite periods’
[1]
[1]: Marcella Frangipane, ‘Arslantepe-Malatya: A Prehistoric and Early Historic Center in Eastern Anatolia’, The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia: (10,000-323 BCE), Edited by Gregory McMahon and Sharon Steadman, 2011, p. 985 |
||||||
|
‘judging from the fact that in the Late Bronze I (Period V B, 1750-1600 b.c.e.), a town gate was built in the Arslantepe earthen wall defense system, flanked by two bipartite quadrangular towers, which was highly reminiscent of similar central Anatolian gates, such as those at AliŞar or Boğazköy (Palmieri 1978). ... this fortification system arrangement remained unchanged throughout the imperial Hittite and Neo-Hittite periods’
[1]
[1]: Marcella Frangipane, ‘Arslantepe-Malatya: A Prehistoric and Early Historic Center in Eastern Anatolia’, The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia: (10,000-323 BCE), Edited by Gregory McMahon and Sharon Steadman, 2011, p. 985 |
||||||
|
‘judging from the fact that in the Late Bronze I (Period V B, 1750-1600 b.c.e.), a town gate was built in the Arslantepe earthen wall defense system, flanked by two bipartite quadrangular towers, which was highly reminiscent of similar central Anatolian gates, such as those at AliŞar or Boğazköy (Palmieri 1978). ... this fortification system arrangement remained unchanged throughout the imperial Hittite and Neo-Hittite periods’
[1]
[1]: Marcella Frangipane, ‘Arslantepe-Malatya: A Prehistoric and Early Historic Center in Eastern Anatolia’, The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia: (10,000-323 BCE), Edited by Gregory McMahon and Sharon Steadman, 2011, p. 985 |
||||||
|
Boğazköy on the hill. ‘judging from the fact that in the Late Bronze I (Period V B, 1750-1600 b.c.e.), a town gate was built in the Arslantepe earthen wall defense system, flanked by two bipartite quadrangular towers, which was highly reminiscent of similar central Anatolian gates, such as those at AliŞar or Boğazköy (Palmieri 1978). ... this fortification system arrangement remained unchanged throughout the imperial Hittite and Neo-Hittite periods’
[1]
[1]: Marcella Frangipane, ‘Arslantepe-Malatya: A Prehistoric and Early Historic Center in Eastern Anatolia’, The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia: (10,000-323 BCE), Edited by Gregory McMahon and Sharon Steadman, 2011, p. 985 |
||||||
|
Urartu’s craftsmen used iron picks and hammers to forge horizontal planes out of bedrock on which to erect the empire’s numerous and imposing stone fortresses.
[1]
[1]: Lori Khatchadourian, ‘The Iron Age in Eastern Anatolia’, The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia: (10,000-323 BCE), Edited by Gregory McMahon and Sharon Steadman, 2011, p. 480 |
||||||
|
citadel mentioned below
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Military colonies.
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Most housing was temporary, given the practice of nomadic pastoralism (see above).
|
||||||
|
Note: The sources suggest that many of these defensive structures may have ceased to be built after subjugation by the Russians in 1642. They were initially coded as inferred present. The data sheets for the Lena River valley were re-periodized after the initial coding of this section. The codes were changed accordingly, but remain in need of review, as indicated above.
|
||||||
|
’The Jivaro house is generally constructed with an eye to defense. As a rule, a house is erected in a small clearing, one side of which either faces a steep mountainside or a river bank.’
[1]
’When the menaced Jívaro is the chief of the tribe or a person of prestige, he constructs a very remarkable kind of a fort on the top of a hill where he can see a long way. Four enormous strong posts, 25 m. high, chosen from among the strongest in the forest, support a little room 3 m. square with a floor of strong wood, a roof like those in the houses, surrounded by a wall of chonta and caña one meter high. A big ladder is the only way of getting in. In this fort are placed an enormous tunduli, rocks to be thrown against the assailants, lances, machetes, implements of every sort, and occasionally a good Winchester rifle completes the armament. It is unnecessary to add that all the approaches are protected by numerous traps.’
[2]
[1]: Stirling, Matthew Williams. 1938. “Historical And Ethnographical Material On The Jivaro Indians.”, 59 [2]: Rivet, Paul. 1907. “Jivaro Indians: Geographic, Historical And Ethnographic Research.”, 617-618 |
||||||
|
The shuar house is generally constructed with an eye to defense. As a rule, a house is erected in a small clearing, one side of which either faces a steep mountainside or a river bank.
[1]
"When the menaced Jívaro is the chief of the tribe or a person of prestige, he constructs a very remarkable kind of a fort on the top of a hill where he can see a long way. Four enormous strong posts, 25 m. high, chosen from among the strongest in the forest, support a little room 3 m. square with a floor of strong wood, a roof like those in the houses, surrounded by a wall of chonta and caña one meter high. A big ladder is the only way of getting in. In this fort are placed an enormous tunduli, rocks to be thrown against the assailants, lances, machetes, implements of every sort, and occasionally a good Winchester rifle completes the armament. It is unnecessary to add that all the approaches are protected by numerous traps."
[2]
[1]: Stirling, Matthew Williams. 1938. “Historical And Ethnographical Material On The Jivaro Indians.”, 59 [2]: Rivet, Paul. 1907. “Jivaro Indians: Geographic, Historical And Ethnographic Research.”, 617-618 |
||||||
|
Tell el-Dab’a and Qantir in the eastern Delta. "The city was strategically situated near the road leading to the border fortress of Sile and the provinces in Palestine and Syria and also along the Pelusiac branch of the Nile, and it soon became the most important international trade centre and military base in the country."
[1]
[1]: (Van Dijk 2000, 292) |
||||||
|
Present in previous and subsequent periods.
|
||||||
|
There were garrison towns which were strategically located on high lying ground. Many cities were not fortified and lacked walls. Major temples were fortified structures.
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Built on a plain, the city was defended by a belt of hills that enabled it to control various points of access. This was the case of Niani, the ancient capital of Mali: located in a vast plain near the Sankarani, it was protected by a ring of hills leaving passageways between them. "Bâtie au milieu d’une plaine, la ville était défendue par une ceinture de collines qui permettaient un contrôle facile des voies d’accès. C’est le cas notamment de Niani, l’ancienne capitale du Mali: située au milieu d’une vaste plaine au bord du Sankarani, elle était protégée par un arc de cercle de collines laissant entre elles de larges passages."
[1]
[1]: (Niane 1975, 63-64) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Built on a plain, the city was defended by a belt of hills that enabled it to control various points of access. This was the case of Niani, the ancient capital of Mali: located in a vast plain near the Sankarani, it was protected by a ring of hills leaving passageways between them. "Bâtie au milieu d’une plaine, la ville était défendue par une ceinture de collines qui permettaient un contrôle facile des voies d’accès. C’est le cas notamment de Niani, l’ancienne capitale du Mali: située au milieu d’une vaste plaine au bord du Sankarani, elle était protégée par un arc de cercle de collines laissant entre elles de larges passages."
[1]
[1]: (Niane 1975, 63-64) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
present in preceding Ayyubate Sultanate
|
||||||
|
present in preceding Ayyubate Sultanate
|
||||||
|
present in preceding Ayyubate Sultanate
|
||||||
|
In the 15th century, Djenné was the archetype of a fortified city: built on an island, it was defended by a ring of water; the city itself was protected by a wall with 11 doors. "Mais au XVè siècle, Djenné était la ville forte par excellence: bâtie sur une île, elle était admirablement défendue par une ceinture d’eau; la ville elle-même était protégée par une enceinte percée de 11 portes."
[1]
[1]: (Niane 1975, 125) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Frontiers settled with military colonies.
[1]
Military fortresses e.g. Luntai, Xinjiang.
[2]
"The border defense system had five basic architectural components. First were the border towns...most of them have moats, walls, gates, wall towers, corner towers, streets, administrative offices, shops, residences and storehouses. Some had additional wall fortifications and beacon towers."
[3]
[1]: (Roberts 2003, 44) [2]: (Chang, Xu, Allan and Lu 2005, 277) Chang, Kwang-chih. Xu, Pingfang. Allan, Sarah. Lu, Liancheng. 2005. The Formation of Chinese Civilization: An Archaeological Perspective. Yale University Press. [3]: (Steinhardt, Nancy. 2002. Chinese Architecture. 新世界出版社. 38) |
||||||
|
The Great Wall as a defensive settlement
[1]
[1]: (Encyclopedia Britannica 2015, "The Great Wall") "The Great Wall." 2015. Encyclopedia Britannica. http://www.britannica.com/. |
||||||
|
The Great Wall as a defensive settlement
[1]
[1]: (Encyclopedia Britannica 2015, "The Great Wall") "The Great Wall." 2015. Encyclopedia Britannica. http://www.britannica.com/. |
||||||
|
"Not all of the Xianbei were moved south to Luoyang. Large numbers were left along the northern frontier and in the vicinity of the old capital to guard the Wei realm against the Rouran, a tribal confederacy that had emerged to dominate the northern steppe around the beginning of the fifth century. To counter the Rouran threat, the Wei rulers had established a dozen major garrisons during the first half of the fifth century. These stretched in an arc along the northern frontier from Dunhuang at the end of the Gansu corridor in the far northwest to Yuyi directly north of modern Beijing. The sector of the line that covered Pingcheng and the Dai region of northern Shanxi became known as the “Six Garrisons.” These were anchored on the west by Woye garrison on the great northward loop of the Yellow River. To the east of Woye lay Huaishuo (north of modern Baotou), Wuchuan (northwest of Hohhot), Fuming, Rouxuan, and Huaihuang. These positions commanded the swath of grassland south of the Gobi Desert, where invaders coming from the north would otherwise have been able to pasture their tired and hungry horses before attacking the settled lands to the south
[1]
[1]: (Graff 2002, 98-9) Graff, D A. 2002. Medieval Chinese Warfare, 300-900. Routledge. London. |
||||||
|
Military colonies on the frontier.
|
||||||
|
’Mountain fortresses appear to be an indigenous form, and were typical of remote areas’
[1]
"Unlike the walled towns of China and Korea, fortified places in Japan tended to be isolated military outposts. These yamashiro (mountain castles) were hilltop fortresses consisting only of wooden stockades, gates and towers, joined to one another across valleys and peaks to form a complex defensive arrangement. With no stone or mudbrick walls to batter down, these castles were almost always overcome by infantry assault, often supported by arson attacks launched by fire arrows."
[2]
[1]: Deal, William E. 2005. Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press.p.173. [2]: (Turnball 2002) Turnball, S. 2002. Siege Weapons of the Far East (1): AD 612-1300. Osprey Publishing. |
||||||
|
Military colonies on the frontier.
[1]
"Garrisons normally occupied fortified positions from walled towns to earthworks and palisades."
[2]
[1]: (Graff 2002, 228) Graff, D A. 2002. Medieval Chinese Warfare, 300-900. Routledge. London [2]: (Graff 2002, 231) Graff, D A. 2002. Medieval Chinese Warfare, 300-900. Routledge. London |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
defensive forts mentioned below, but no information on whether the locations were decided for defensive reasons
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Not discussed in consulted literature RA.
|
||||||
|
David Baker says present.
[1]
"Forts and Castles Castles were not terribly common in the Carolingian age. The great age of castle construction was the eleventh and twelfth centuries during the social, economic, and political revolution that strengthened the aristocracy and handed control of the lands to its members. Castles became essential to maintain this inequitable structure, but in the Carolingian age there were some castles and heavily defended towns that required siege methods to overcome."
[2]
[1]: David Baker. Personal communication to Seshat Databank. [2]: (Butt 2002, 38) John J Butt. 2002. Daily Life in the Age of Charlemagne. Greenwood Publishing Group. Westport. |
||||||
|
David Baker says present.
[1]
"Forts and Castles Castles were not terribly common in the Carolingian age. The great age of castle construction was the eleventh and twelfth centuries during the social, economic, and political revolution that strengthened the aristocracy and handed control of the lands to its members. Castles became essential to maintain this inequitable structure, but in the Carolingian age there were some castles and heavily defended towns that required siege methods to overcome."
[2]
[1]: David Baker. Personal communication to Seshat Databank. [2]: (Butt 2002, 38) John J Butt. 2002. Daily Life in the Age of Charlemagne. Greenwood Publishing Group. Westport. |
||||||
|
"Castle architecture became increasingly complex from the 12th to 13th centuries. ... All of these precautions became obsolete with the widespread use of gunpowder in the 14th and 15th centuries, and castles became simply country residences for the nobility."
[1]
[1]: (Jesse 1995, 181) Scott Jesse. Castles. William W Kibler. Grover A Zinn. Lawrence Earp. John Bell Henneman Jr. 1995. Routledge Revivals: Medieval France (1995): An Encyclopedia. Routledge. Abingdon. |
||||||
|
Present in previous and subsequent polities.
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Code inferred from Abbasid Caliphate
[1]
which occupied Yemen between 751-868 CE.
[1]: Hugh N Kennedy. 2001. The Armies of the Caliphs: Military and Society in the Early Islamic State. Routledge. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/SGPPFNAZ/q/kennedy |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Cities were generally “enclosed by a fortified wall, within which there was frequently a citadel”.
[1]
"Castles tended to occupy the summits of mountains, with the citadel at the uppermost point, as is best exemplified by Ismaili castles, but can also be found in Seljuk fortifications like Shahdiz."
[2]
[1]: Lambton, A.K.S., ‘The Internal Structure of the Saljuq Empire’, in The Cambridge History of Iran. Vol 5, The Saljuq and Mongol Period, ed. by J.A. Boyle (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), p.274. [2]: (Peacock 2015, 242) Peacock, A C S. 2015. The Great Seljuk Empire. Edinburgh University Press Ltd. Edinburgh. |
||||||
|
Code inferred from Abbasid Caliphate
[1]
which occupied Yemen between 751-868 CE.
[1]: Hugh N Kennedy. 2001. The Armies of the Caliphs: Military and Society in the Early Islamic State. Routledge. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/SGPPFNAZ/q/kennedy |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
defensive walls around cities are mentioned below, but not explicitly stating whether natural geographic considerations came into the designing of city defenses
|
||||||
|
Varthema saw the Tãhirid capital al-Miqrãnah, fifteen years before it was plundered by the Egyptian army in 923/ 1517 and this is how he described it:1 It is situated on the top of a mountain, the ascent to which is seven miles and to which only two persons can go abreast on account of the narrowness of the path.
[1]
‘Aden was heavily fortified. There was a string of fortresses along the top of the mountain ^ ... He also mentions that there were two towers on Huqqat bay equiped with artillery and a catapult.^’
[2]
[1]: Venetia Porter, ‘THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE TĀHIRID DYNASTY OF THE YEMEN’, Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies, Vol. 19, Proceedings of the Twenty Second SEMINAR FOR ARABIAN STUDIES held at Oxford on 26th - 28th July 1988 (1989), p. 105 [2]: Porter, Venetia Ann (1992) The history and monuments of the Tahirid dynasty of the Yemen 858-923/1454-1517, Durham theses, Durham University, p. 180, Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/5867/ |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Commenting on Jean Deloche’s ’Studies on Fortification in India’ a book reviewer says that fort construction "with long-term building and modification programs ... became the focal point for local populations as well as for their leaders" and often were "placed at points on the landscape that already were natural strongholds and places of ritual devolution".
[1]
[1]: (Smith 2010, 273) Monica L Smith. January 2010. Journal of the American Oriental Society. 130.2. Studies on Fortification in India. Collection Indologie, vol. 104. Four Forts of the Deccan vol. 111. Senji (Gingee): A Fortified City in the Tamil Country. vol. 101 by Jean Deloche. |
||||||
|
Commenting on Jean Deloche’s ’Studies on Fortification in India’ a book reviewer says that fort construction "with long-term building and modification programs ... became the focal point for local populations as well as for their leaders" and often were "placed at points on the landscape that already were natural strongholds and places of ritual devolution".
[1]
Under chapter 9 "The Rajput Administration": "The baladhikrta was generally a military officer put in charge of a town. The mahayudhapati should have been an officer in charge of the arsenal. Pilupati, asvapati and paikkadhipati were respectively commanders of elephant, horse and infantry forces. The kottapala was an officer in charge of a kotta or fort. He can be regared as a precursor of the modern kotwal. The kottapala of Gwalior as a Wardern of the Marches as well as governor of the fort. Rajasthan had plenty of forts, and the Rajputs knew well the technique of fort warfare."
[2]
[1]: (Smith 2010, 273) Monica L Smith. January 2010. Journal of the American Oriental Society. 130.2. Studies on Fortification in India. Collection Indologie, vol. 104. Four Forts of the Deccan vol. 111. Senji (Gingee): A Fortified City in the Tamil Country. vol. 101 by Jean Deloche. [2]: (Bakshi, Gajrani and Singh eds 2005, 393) S R Bakshi. S Gajrani. Hari Singh. eds. 2005. Early Aryans to Swaraj. Volume 3: Indian Education and Rajputs. Sarup & Sons. New Delhi. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
"extensive traces of structural mounds within the fortification of ancient Ayodhya ... extensive excavations urgently needed at this site which is one of the most important of northern India ... there are still places which would bear extensive horizontal excavations."
[1]
"In the Middle Ganga valley all the city sites are fortified (e.g. Ayodhya, Rajghat, Kausambi, Sravasti, Patna, Kankarbagh, Rajgir, Vaisali, Champa, Balirajgarh) while the rural sites were not fortified (e.g. Piprahwa, Sohgaura, Khairadih, Chirand, Buxar, Mason, Sonepur, Apsad, Sarai-Mohna Prahladpur, Takiapar, Lakhneshwardih, Nandigram, Chechar-Kutubpur, Chandadih, Oriup)..."
[2]
[1]: (Chakrabarti 2001, 253) Dilip K Chakrabarti. 2001. Archaeological Geography of the Ganga Plain: The Lower and the Middle Ganga. Permanent Black. Delhi. [2]: (? 1994, 13) Shodhak. Volume 23. Part 1. Issue 67 - Part 3. Issue 69. Bhartiya Pragtisheel Shiksha Parishad. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Commenting on Jean Deloche’s ’Studies on Fortification in India’ a book reviewer says that fort construction "with long-term building and modification programs ... became the focal point for local populations as well as for their leaders" and often were "placed at points on the landscape that already were natural strongholds and places of ritual devolution".
[1]
[1]: (Smith 2010, 273) Monica L Smith. January 2010. Journal of the American Oriental Society. 130.2. Studies on Fortification in India. Collection Indologie, vol. 104. Four Forts of the Deccan vol. 111. Senji (Gingee): A Fortified City in the Tamil Country. vol. 101 by Jean Deloche. |
||||||
|
"Some late-phase sites were located on the strategic locations of piedmonts, significantly distant from rivers."
[1]
[1]: (Lee in Peregrine and Ember 2001, 336) Peregrine, P. and M. Ember (eds.) 2001. East Asia and Oceania (Encyclopedia of Prehistory, Volume 3). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Note: Defensive or protection against flooding? |
||||||
|
Fortified towns. Ch’u-chia-ling had a wall and moat in 2800 bce, "their defensive needs [may have been] different from those of the so-called core Lungshan area in Hubei and Shandong."
[1]
Arguments that city walls were to protect against floods, not defensive because they were not maintained.
[2]
[1]: (Sawyer 2011, 82) [2]: (Otterbein 2004, 163) Otterbein, Keith. 2004. How War Began. University of Texas A&M Press. |
||||||
|
"Wei built a fortified town on the Qin-Wei border before launching campaigns against Qin."
[1]
increasing urbanization and large city-walls in this period linked with need for strategic defensive areas
[2]
[1]: (Tin-bor Hui 2005, n100 88) Tin-bor Hui, Victoria. 2005. War and State Formation in Ancient China and Early Modern Europe. Cambridge University Press. [2]: (Hung 1999, 653) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
"Since a great majority of the towns are located on hilltops with very steep slopes, this makes them easily defensible without having to add fortifications. Add to this that the only way of reaching these towns is by climbing in single file a narrow staircase emplaced on a 45, 50, or even 60 per cent slope and we begin to understand why the Spanish had such a hard time attacking and dominating these populations."
[1]
Some of the infrastructure dates from the Neguanje period
[2]
so we can infer that this would be true for the Neguanje period as well.
[1]: (Giraldo 2009, 25) [2]: (Giraldo 2015, personal communication) |
||||||
|
"Since a great majority of the towns are located on hilltops with very steep slopes, this makes them easily defensible without having to add fortifications. Add to this that the only way of reaching these towns is by climbing in single file a narrow staircase emplaced on a 45, 50, or even 60 per cent slope and we begin to understand why the Spanish had such a hard time attacking and dominating these populations."
[1]
[1]: (Giraldo 2009, 25) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
’Villages were often built on hill-tops (where there were any hills) by way of defence, and many such sites are marked by clusters of coco-nut palms in the Tain-Daware district. In these easy-going times they have been abandoned for more accessible positions.’
[1]
[1]: Williams, F. E. (Francis Edgar), and Hubert Murray. 1930. “Orokaiva Society.”, 164 |
||||||
|
Villages were often built on hill-tops (where there were any hills) by way of defence, and many such sites are marked by clusters of coco-nut palms in the Tain-Daware district. In these easy-going times they have been abandoned for more accessible positions.
[1]
[1]: Williams, F. E. (Francis Edgar), and Hubert Murray. 1930. “Orokaiva Society.”, 164 |
||||||
|
"But nevertheless, in some sites, the archaeological entries are so numerous that we have to talk of major (even fortified) settlements. Some exam- ples are Los Millares (Southeast Spain), Vilanova de Sao Pedro (Portugal), Camp de Laure (France), and Mount Pleasant (Great Britain). These settlements cover up to a few hectares and are usually found in easily defensible areas, such as hills or river spurs."
[1]
[1]: (Clop Garcia 2001, 25) |
||||||
|
"Clearly identifiable but often not well dated, upland settlements are regarded as central sites in the pattern of land occupation. This is true of sites such as Fort-Harrouard on the Eure, or St-Pierre-en-Chastres, at the confluence of the Oise and the Aisne, Carsac on the Aude, and Camp Allaric on the Clain.
[1]
[1]: (Mordant 2013, 579) |
||||||
|
Villeneuve-Saint Germaine
[1]
is an oppidium just outside (NE) of the Paris basin NGA. 70 ha area. From medium-late Hallstatt (Ha D).EXTERNAL_INLINE_LINK: http://www.oppida.org/page.php?lg=fr&rub=00&id_oppidum=168
[1]: (Buchsenschutz 1995, 55) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Not mentioned in the literature.
|
||||||
|
Not discussed in consulted literature RA.
|
||||||
|
Present in previous and subsequent periods.
|
||||||
|
Present in previous and subsequent polities.
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Note: The military tactics of the Hmong of Western Hunan during the Hmong Uprising of 1795-1797 have been described. These codes reflect these tactics. Hmong settlements were constructed along mountainsides and rivers and surrounded with defensive structures: ’The Miao settlement is called “chai” (Illus. 12, 13), built generally against a mountainside or along a river, without any uniform appearance. The chai wall is made of earth or stone slabs, and there is no definite number of gates. The streets of a chai zigzag up and down, with tiny alleys on both sides. In each alley there are a few families. The alleys are interconnected. Without a guide one can get lost once inside a chai; turning right and left, one will be unable to find an exit. Chinese passing through a Miao chai often cannot find a single Miao, because they have gone into hiding in small alleys, barring the doors and refusing to come out. The Miao chais are not located along lines of communication but in the deep mountains and valleys accessible only by small paths. Although visible at a distance, they often cannot be reached. Without modern arms, they cannot be easily taken. For the last few hundred years continuous Miao unrest in western Hunan may be largely related to the fact that their chais were easy to defend and difficult to capture.’
[1]
Many Hmong strongholds were destroyed during the rebellion: ’There were formerly many fortified places called in Chinese chai tzŭ where groups of houses were clustered together for protection. This is indicated by the names of places such as Wang Wu Chai and by the frequent references to fortified places in the legends. To-day there [Page 23] are none to be found. One explanation given by Ch’uan Miao friends is that the danger of fire was too great so that people no longer built their houses so close together. There are two other possible reasons. One is that the Chinese destroyed the strongholds in war and to prevent future rebellions, and the other is that there is no longer danger of raids and attacks from the Lolos. Chinese histories actually mention the destruction of the strongholds’.
[2]
[1]: Ling, Shun-sheng, Yifu Ruey, and Lien-en Tsao 1947. “Report On An Investigation Of The Miao Of Western Hunan”, 59 [2]: Graham, David Crockett 1937. “Customs Of The Ch’Uan Miao”, 22 |
||||||
|
’The Miao settlement is called “chai” (Illus. 12, 13), built generally against a mountainside or along a river, without any uniform appearance. The chai wall is made of earth or stone slabs, and there is no definite number of gates. The streets of a chai zigzag up and down, with tiny alleys on both sides. In each alley there are a few families. The alleys are interconnected. Without a guide one can get lost once inside a chai; turning right and left, one will be unable to find an exit. Chinese passing through a Miao chai often cannot find a single Miao, because they have gone into hiding in small alleys, barring the doors and refusing to come out. The Miao chais are not located along lines of communication but in the deep mountains and valleys accessible only by small paths. Although visible at a distance, they often cannot be reached. Without modern arms, they cannot be easily taken. For the last few hundred years continuous Miao unrest in western Hunan may be largely related to the fact that their chais were easy to defend and difficult to capture.’
[1]
[1]: Ling, Shun-sheng, Yifu Ruey, and Lien-en Tsao 1947. “Report On An Investigation Of The Miao Of Western Hunan”, 59 |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
e. g. Badigihursaga
[1]
, also two fortresses were erected by Shulgi - Shulgi-Nanna and Ishim-Shulgi
[2]
Late 3rd - early 2md millennium BCE text: "the fortress is too high and cannot be reached".
[3]
[1]: Rutkowski 2007, 26 [2]: Hamblin 2006, 110 [3]: Ninurta’s exploits: a šir-sud (?) to Ninurta: c.1.6.2. The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (ETCSL). etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
e. g. Laz and Igi-kharsagga
[1]
, Dur-Sin-muballit
[2]
It seems that most settlements in Old Babylonia were walled and frequently had fortified gates.
[3]
Tell Harmal, the site of the ancient town Shaduppum was under the rule of Eshnunna, was surrounded by a wall with butressing towers.
[4]
What kind of defensive position?
[1]: Hamblin, W. J. 2006. Warfare in the Ancient Near East to 1600 BC. New York: Routledge, 173 [2]: Hamblin, W. J. 2006. Warfare in the Ancient Near East to 1600 BC. New York: Routledge, 176 [3]: Crawford, H. 2007. Architecture in the Old Babylonian Period. In Leick, G. (ed.) The Babylonian World. London: Routledge. p.82 [4]: Oates, J. Babylon. Revised Edition. London: Thames and Hudson. p.70 |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
‘early Neolithic settlements have proven difficult to document even in intensively surveyed regions.’ There is only evidence for mudbrick architecture
[1]
[1]: Lloyd R. Weeks, ‘The Development and Expansion of a Neolithic Way of Life’, In Daniel T. Potts (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, 2013, p. 56 |
||||||
|
Base camps with fortified walls are present, defending against animal or human attackers
[1]
Tell Areini and Tell Arad, fortified settlements in the South, suggesting they were in competition with each other for control of land and resources.
[2]
[1]: (Leverani 2014, 39-42) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. [2]: (Leverani 2014, 130) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London. |
||||||
|
Late Bronze, Early Iron Age: ‘Large fortresses occupied mountain spurs at strategic points, and smaller forts were built along important lines of communication’.
[1]
Late 3rd - early 2nd millennium BCE Sumerian text: "the fortress is too high and cannot be reached".
[2]
If forts were positioned on hills were a feature of the fortified architectural landscape in c2000 BCE and in Elam in c1000 BCE it is likely they also were used between times, and possibly after.
[1]: Michael D. Danti, ‘The Late Bronze and Early Iron Age in Northwestern Iran’, In Daniel T. Potts (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, 2013, p. 368 [2]: Ninurta’s exploits: a šir-sud (?) to Ninurta: c.1.6.2. The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (ETCSL). etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk. |
||||||
|
Late Bronze, Early Iron Age: ‘Large fortresses occupied mountain spurs at strategic points, and smaller forts were built along important lines of communication’.
[1]
Late 3rd - early 2nd millennium BCE Sumerian text: "the fortress is too high and cannot be reached".
[2]
If forts were positioned on hills were a feature of the fortified architectural landscape in c2000 BCE and in Elam in c1000 BCE it is likely they also were used between times, and possibly after.
[1]: Michael D. Danti, ‘The Late Bronze and Early Iron Age in Northwestern Iran’, In Daniel T. Potts (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, 2013, p. 368 [2]: Ninurta’s exploits: a šir-sud (?) to Ninurta: c.1.6.2. The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (ETCSL). etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk. |
||||||
|
Late Bronze, Early Iron Age: ‘Large fortresses occupied mountain spurs at strategic points, and smaller forts were built along important lines of communication’.
[1]
Late 3rd - early 2nd millennium BCE Sumerian text: "the fortress is too high and cannot be reached".
[2]
If forts were positioned on hills were a feature of the fortified architectural landscape in c2000 BCE and in Elam in c1000 BCE it is likely they also were used between times, and possibly after.
[1]: Michael D. Danti, ‘The Late Bronze and Early Iron Age in Northwestern Iran’, In Daniel T. Potts (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, 2013, p. 368 [2]: Ninurta’s exploits: a šir-sud (?) to Ninurta: c.1.6.2. The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (ETCSL). etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk. |
||||||
|
Late Bronze, Early Iron Age: ‘Large fortresses occupied mountain spurs at strategic points, and smaller forts were built along important lines of communication’.
[1]
Late 3rd - early 2nd millennium BCE Sumerian text: "the fortress is too high and cannot be reached".
[2]
If forts were positioned on hills were a feature of the fortified architectural landscape in c2000 BCE and in Elam in c1000 BCE it is likely they also were used between times, and possibly after.
[1]: Michael D. Danti, ‘The Late Bronze and Early Iron Age in Northwestern Iran’, In Daniel T. Potts (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, 2013, p. 368 [2]: Ninurta’s exploits: a šir-sud (?) to Ninurta: c.1.6.2. The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (ETCSL). etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk. |
||||||
|
Late Bronze, Early Iron Age: ‘Large fortresses occupied mountain spurs at strategic points, and smaller forts were built along important lines of communication’.
[1]
Late 3rd - early 2nd millennium BCE Sumerian text: "the fortress is too high and cannot be reached".
[2]
If forts were positioned on hills were a feature of the fortified architectural landscape in c2000 BCE and in Elam in c1000 BCE it is likely they also were used between times, and possibly after.
[1]: Michael D. Danti, ‘The Late Bronze and Early Iron Age in Northwestern Iran’, In Daniel T. Potts (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, 2013, p. 368 [2]: Ninurta’s exploits: a šir-sud (?) to Ninurta: c.1.6.2. The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (ETCSL). etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk. |
||||||
|
Late Bronze, Early Iron Age: ‘Large fortresses occupied mountain spurs at strategic points, and smaller forts were built along important lines of communication’.
[1]
Late 3rd - early 2nd millennium BCE Sumerian text: "the fortress is too high and cannot be reached".
[2]
If forts were positioned on hills were a feature of the fortified architectural landscape in c2000 BCE and in Elam in c1000 BCE it is likely they also were used between times, and possibly after.
[1]: Michael D. Danti, ‘The Late Bronze and Early Iron Age in Northwestern Iran’, In Daniel T. Potts (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, 2013, p. 368 [2]: Ninurta’s exploits: a šir-sud (?) to Ninurta: c.1.6.2. The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (ETCSL). etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk. |
||||||
|
Late Bronze, Early Iron Age: ‘Large fortresses occupied mountain spurs at strategic points, and smaller forts were built along important lines of communication’.
[1]
Late 3rd - early 2nd millennium BCE Sumerian text: "the fortress is too high and cannot be reached".
[2]
If forts were positioned on hills were a feature of the fortified architectural landscape in c2000 BCE and in Elam in c1000 BCE it is likely they also were used between times, and possibly after.
[1]: Michael D. Danti, ‘The Late Bronze and Early Iron Age in Northwestern Iran’, In Daniel T. Potts (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, 2013, p. 368 [2]: Ninurta’s exploits: a šir-sud (?) to Ninurta: c.1.6.2. The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (ETCSL). etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk. |
||||||
|
Late Bronze, Early Iron Age: ‘Large fortresses occupied mountain spurs at strategic points, and smaller forts were built along important lines of communication’.
[1]
Late 3rd - early 2nd millennium BCE Sumerian text: "the fortress is too high and cannot be reached".
[2]
If forts were positioned on hills were a feature of the fortified architectural landscape in c2000 BCE and in Elam in c1000 BCE it is likely they also were used between times, and possibly after.
[1]: Michael D. Danti, ‘The Late Bronze and Early Iron Age in Northwestern Iran’, In Daniel T. Potts (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, 2013, p. 368 [2]: Ninurta’s exploits: a šir-sud (?) to Ninurta: c.1.6.2. The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (ETCSL). etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk. |
||||||
|
Late Bronze, Early Iron Age: ‘Large fortresses occupied mountain spurs at strategic points, and smaller forts were built along important lines of communication’.
[1]
Late 3rd - early 2nd millennium BCE Sumerian text: "the fortress is too high and cannot be reached".
[2]
If forts were positioned on hills were a feature of the fortified architectural landscape in c2000 BCE and in Elam in c1000 BCE it is likely they also were used between times, and possibly after.
[1]: Michael D. Danti, ‘The Late Bronze and Early Iron Age in Northwestern Iran’, In Daniel T. Potts (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, 2013, p. 368 [2]: Ninurta’s exploits: a šir-sud (?) to Ninurta: c.1.6.2. The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (ETCSL). etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk. |
||||||
|
Late Bronze, Early Iron Age: ‘Large fortresses occupied mountain spurs at strategic points, and smaller forts were built along important lines of communication’.
[1]
Late 3rd - early 2nd millennium BCE Sumerian text: "the fortress is too high and cannot be reached".
[2]
If forts were positioned on hills were a feature of the fortified architectural landscape in c2000 BCE and in Elam in c1000 BCE it is likely they also were used between times, and possibly after.
[1]: Michael D. Danti, ‘The Late Bronze and Early Iron Age in Northwestern Iran’, In Daniel T. Potts (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, 2013, p. 368 [2]: Ninurta’s exploits: a šir-sud (?) to Ninurta: c.1.6.2. The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (ETCSL). etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
"A perhaps unexpected role that fell to Turcomans who had risen to power in the mountains of Anatolia, far from the sea, was to garrison forts along the Arabian Gulf coast to protect the rich trading links with India."
[1]
[1]: (Nicolle 1990, 37) Nicolle, David. 1990. The Age of Tamerlane. Osprey Publishing. |
||||||
|
"With Tehran established as the capital in 1786, the urban fabric was further developed by the expansion of the bazaar ..., palaces, and military fortifications.”
[1]
[1]: (Gharipour 2012, 133) Mohammad Gharipour. Architecture. Andrea L Stanton. ed. 2012. Sage. Cultural Sociology of the Middle East, Asia, and Africa: An Encyclopedia. Los Angeles. |
||||||
|
Completely no data about any fortifications.
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
e.g. Southern border at Elephantine.
[1]
[1]: (Juan Carlos Moreno García 2013, 190 cite: Building the Pharaonic state: Territory, elite, and power in ancient Egypt in the 3rd millennium BCE http://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/book/toc/15127.html) |
||||||
|
e.g. Southern border at Elephantine.
[1]
[1]: (Juan Carlos Moreno García 2013, 190 cite: Building the Pharaonic state: Territory, elite, and power in ancient Egypt in the 3rd millennium BCE http://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/book/toc/15127.html) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Middle Kingdom fortresses "were remarkable examples of military architecture with huge walls, ramparts and ditches, bastions, and fortified gates with drawbridges. Inside them were barracks, magazines, workships and offices, as well as small temples for Egyptian gods... Large granaries contained the rations to feed the troops and personnel stationed there."
[1]
e.g. southern border.
[1]
[1]: (Van De Mieroop 2011, 113) Van De Mieroop, Marc. 2011. A History of Ancient Egypt. Wiley-Backwell. Chichester. |
||||||
|
needs expert verification
|
||||||
|
The majority of settlements were located in fertile arable land during this period.
[1]
[1]: Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York. |
||||||
|
The majority of settlements were located in fertile arable land during this period.
[1]
[1]: Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People: divergent evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec civilizations. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Academic Press, New York. |
||||||
|
Settlements were primarily situated in fertile agricultural land during this period, although a few settlements were located on hilltops.
[1]
[1]: Nicholas, L. M (1989) Land use in prehispanic Oaxaca. In, Kowalewski, S. A., Feiman, G.M., Finsten, L., Blanton, R. E. and Nicholas, L. M. Monte Albán’s Hinterland, Part II: the prehispanic settlement patterns in Tlacoula, Etla and Ocotlán, the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Number 23. Ann Arbor: 449-505; Kowalewski, S. A., Feiman, G.M., Finsten, L., Blanton, R. E. and Nicholas, L. M. Monte Albán’s Hinterland, Part II: the prehispanic settlement patterns in Tlacoula, Etla and Ocotlán, the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Number 23. Ann Arbor |
||||||
|
Monte Albán was built on a hill 400m above the valley floor and a number of other settlements were located on hilltops.
[1]
[2]
[1]: Flannery, K. V. and J. Marcus (1976). "Formative Oaxaca and Zapotec Cosmos." American Scientist 64(4): 374-383. [2]: Kowalewski, S. A., Feiman, G.M., Finsten, L., Blanton, R. E. and Nicholas, L. M. Monte Albán’s Hinterland, Part II: the prehispanic settlement patterns in Tlacoula, Etla and Ocotlán, the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Number 23. Ann Arbor |
||||||
|
Monte Albán was built on a hill 400m above the valley floor and a number of other settlements were located on hilltops.
[1]
[2]
[1]: Flannery, K. V. and J. Marcus (1976). "Formative Oaxaca and Zapotec Cosmos." American Scientist 64(4): 374-383. [2]: Kowalewski, S. A., Feiman, G.M., Finsten, L., Blanton, R. E. and Nicholas, L. M. Monte Albán’s Hinterland, Part II: the prehispanic settlement patterns in Tlacoula, Etla and Ocotlán, the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Number 23. Ann Arbor |
||||||
|
Monte Albán was built on a hill 400m above the valley floor and a number of other settlements were located on hilltops.
[1]
[2]
[1]: Flannery, K. V. and J. Marcus (1976). "Formative Oaxaca and Zapotec Cosmos." American Scientist 64(4): 374-383. [2]: Kowalewski, S. A., Feiman, G.M., Finsten, L., Blanton, R. E. and Nicholas, L. M. Monte Albán’s Hinterland, Part II: the prehispanic settlement patterns in Tlacoula, Etla and Ocotlán, the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Number 23. Ann Arbor |
||||||
|
Monte Albán was built on a hill 400m above the valley floor and a number of other settlements were located on hilltops.
[1]
[2]
[1]: Flannery, K. V. and J. Marcus (1976). "Formative Oaxaca and Zapotec Cosmos." American Scientist 64(4): 374-383. [2]: Kowalewski, S. A., Feiman, G.M., Finsten, L., Blanton, R. E. and Nicholas, L. M. Monte Albán’s Hinterland, Part II: the prehispanic settlement patterns in Tlacoula, Etla and Ocotlán, the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Number 23. Ann Arbor |
||||||
|
Monte Albán was built on a hill 400m above the valley floor and a number of other settlements were located on hilltops.
[1]
[2]
[1]: Flannery, K. V. and J. Marcus (1976). "Formative Oaxaca and Zapotec Cosmos." American Scientist 64(4): 374-383. [2]: Kowalewski, S. A., Feiman, G.M., Finsten, L., Blanton, R. E. and Nicholas, L. M. Monte Albán’s Hinterland, Part II: the prehispanic settlement patterns in Tlacoula, Etla and Ocotlán, the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Number 23. Ann Arbor |
||||||
|
Many settlements continued to be located on hilltops during this period.
[1]
[1]: Kowalewski, S. A., Feiman, G.M., Finsten, L., Blanton, R. E. and Nicholas, L. M. Monte Albán’s Hinterland, Part II: the prehispanic settlement patterns in Tlacoula, Etla and Ocotlán, the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Number 23. Ann Arbor |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Rural fortresses built on hilltops were present and remained significant into the modern period: ’Dresch mentions forts of great military importance held by imams and shaykhs: ’Ali al-Ahrnar is mentioned by name in connection with events in 1713, trading his support between rival Imams. His tombstone, and the local tradition that no doubt incorporates what is writtenthere, gives al-Ahmar the .further name of al-Gharibi, and Muhammad ’Ali al-Gharibi, as we have seen, is mentioned as a great shaykh based near Hiith in 1709. Before that we know nothing of the family or of what they were called? But after al-Mansiir al-Husayn declared himself Imam, in 1727, he bought a strategic fort near alAhnum from Qasim al-Ahmar for one thousand riyals and razed it (Zabarah 1941: 55). When al-Mansiir was succeeded by al-Mahdi in 1748, al-Ahmar went down to Habur, took the area and rebuilt the fort. In the interim, in 1729-30, the Najran tribe of Yam had attacked the Tihamah and the west, after Hashid had opened the route to them through Dhibin, Bayt al-Ahmar are mentioned specifically as taking (and very probably retaking) areas of Hufash and Milhan, and then sending part of the spoil to the Imam as if to legitimate their position (Zabarah 1958: 890-2). No details are given of how extensive their possessions were.’
[1]
’In 175I, however, a millenarian rising broke out in the western mountains, led by Abu ’AIamah, a black ’magician’ who preached a puritanical renewal of Islam. Accounts of the rising mention several forts in the west being taken from Bayt al-Ahmar: al-Qahirah at alMahabishah was lost, then Qaradah and al-Gharnuq at Najrah, just south of Hajjah, then Sabrah, and finally the fort near alMadayir that al-Mansur had bought several years earlier (Zabarah 1941: 53-5).
[2]
’Nor were Bayt al-Ahrnar of Hashid the only shaykhly family in the area: Nasir juzaylan of Dhu Muhammad lost forts to Abu ’Alamah at al-Masiih, and a garrison from Dhii Husayn were chased out of al-Sha’iq in Bani ’Awam (again near Hajjah), but the shaykhly families of Barat retained or re-established a hold there. Al al-Shayif of Dhfi Husayn, for example, still own land in Hajjah province, and Bayt Hubaysh of Sufyan have considerable holdings near al-Mahwit (Tutwiler 1987). The picture which emerges between the lines of eighteenth-century histories and tariijim is of myriad forts in the western mountains, each garrisoned by twenty or thirty tribal soldiers and controlling an area for some shaykh of the northern plateau.’
[3]
[1]: Dresch, Paul 1989. "Tribes, Government and History in Yemen", 205p [2]: Dresch, Paul 1989. "Tribes, Government and History in Yemen", 206 [3]: Dresch, Paul 1989. "Tribes, Government and History in Yemen", 206p |
||||||
|
"Watch towers were built along the coasts".
[1]
Port towns in Crete refortified from 1540s CE. One fortress was built on a hill overlooking the town of Rettimo. Island fortresses were built to protect shipping.
[2]
[1]: (Arbel 2014, 205-206) Benjamin Arbel. Venice’s Maritime Empire in the Early Modern Period. Eric Dursteler. ed. 2014. A Companion to Venetian History, 1400-1797. BRILL. Leiden. [2]: (Arbel 2014, 207) Benjamin Arbel. Venice’s Maritime Empire in the Early Modern Period. Eric Dursteler. ed. 2014. A Companion to Venetian History, 1400-1797. BRILL. Leiden. |
||||||
|
"Watch towers were built along the coasts".
[1]
Port towns in Crete refortified from 1540s CE. One fortress was built on a hill overlooking the town of Rettimo. Island fortresses were built to protect shipping.
[2]
[1]: (Arbel 2014, 205-206) Benjamin Arbel. Venice’s Maritime Empire in the Early Modern Period. Eric Dursteler. ed. 2014. A Companion to Venetian History, 1400-1797. BRILL. Leiden. [2]: (Arbel 2014, 207) Benjamin Arbel. Venice’s Maritime Empire in the Early Modern Period. Eric Dursteler. ed. 2014. A Companion to Venetian History, 1400-1797. BRILL. Leiden. |
||||||