| # | Polity | Coded Value | Tags | Year(s) | Edit | Desc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
"Whereas no sites are documented as fortified or military observatories during the Formative and Classic periods, approximately one quarter of sites are during the Epiclassic and one-third of sites are during the Postclassic."
[1]
[1]: (Carballo and Pluckhahn 2007: 615) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/MUW5MHB7. |
||||||
|
"Whereas no sites are documented as fortified or military observatories during the Formative and Classic periods, approximately one quarter of sites are during the Epiclassic and one-third of sites are during the Postclassic."
[1]
[1]: (Carballo and Pluckhahn 2007: 615) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/MUW5MHB7. |
||||||
|
May not survive archaeologically, only detectable via excavation.
|
||||||
|
May not survive archaeologically, only detectable via excavation.
|
||||||
|
"Whereas no sites are documented as fortified or military observatories during the Formative and Classic periods, approximately one quarter of sites are during the Epiclassic and one-third of sites are during the Postclassic."
[1]
[1]: (Carballo and Pluckhahn 2007: 615) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/MUW5MHB7. |
||||||
|
"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. "The Hawaiians generally did not build fortifications, but non-combatants could find sacred sanctuary in places of refuge known as pu’uhonua." Pg 4.
[1]
. Nevertheless, there does appear to evidence for some stone walls, but I’m not sure if they are used in warfare. The “Great Wall” at Hōnaunau, built around 1600 CE, was over 300m long, 3m high and 5m wide
[2]
[3]
. Lapakahi also had a “Great Wall”, which was built between about 1450 and 1500 CE
[4]
.
[1]: Hommon, Robert, J. 2013. The Ancient Hawaiian State: Origins of a Political Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [2]: Kirch, P. V. 1985. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pp. 162-4 [3]: Kirch, P. V. 1985. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pg. 164. [4]: Kirch, P. V. 1985. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pg. 178. |
||||||
|
Not clear whether this information applies to pre-contact polities. "The Hawaiians generally did not build fortifications, but non-combatants could find sacred sanctuary in places of refuge known as pu’uhonua." Pg 4.
[1]
. Nevertheless, there does appear to evidence for some stone walls, but I’m not sure if they are used in warfare. The “Great Wall” at Hōnaunau, built around 1600 CE, was over 300m long, 3m high and 5m wide
[2]
[3]
. Lapakahi also had a “Great Wall”, which was built between about 1450 and 1500 CE
[4]
.
[1]: Hommon, Robert, J. 2013. The Ancient Hawaiian State: Origins of a Political Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [2]: Kirch, P. V. 1985. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pp. 162-4 [3]: Kirch, P. V. 1985. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pg. 164. [4]: Kirch, P. V. 1985. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pg. 178. |
||||||
|
"The Hawaiians generally did not build fortifications, but non-combatants could find sacred sanctuary in places of refuge known as pu’uhonua." Pg 4.
[1]
. Nevertheless, there does appear to evidence for some stone walls, but I’m not sure if they are used in warfare. The “Great Wall” at Hōnaunau, built around 1600 CE, was over 300m long, 3m high and 5m wide
[2]
[3]
. Lapakahi also had a “Great Wall”, which was built between about 1450 and 1500 CE
[4]
.
[1]: Hommon, Robert, J. 2013. The Ancient Hawaiian State: Origins of a Political Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [2]: Kirch, P. V. 1985. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pp. 162-4 [3]: Kirch, P. V. 1985. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pg. 164. [4]: Kirch, P. V. 1985. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pg. 178. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Inferred from the following. "About two millennia ago, during the Middle Woodland period, which spanned several hundred years, intergroup conflict ending in violence was largely absent from eastern North America. Compared to both earlier Archaic hunter-gatherers and later village agriculturalists, few Middle Woodland skeletons have projectile points lodged in bones, distinctive stone-axe injuries, or signs of mutilation such as decapitation and scalping. [...] The scarcity of such injuries is not a result of inadequate sampling, since there are large and well-preserved skeletal collections dating to this period, especially from the Midwest. A rather sudden adoption of food-procurement practices that shifted the balance between resources and consumers to a time of relative plenty presumably played a big part in establishing conditions conducive to openness among otherwise separate groups."
[1]
[1]: (Milner, Chaplin and Zavodny 2013, 96-97) Milner, George, George Chaplin, and Emily Zavodny. 2013. “Conflict and Societal Change in Late Prehistoric Eastern North America.” Evolutionary Anthropology 22: 96-102. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/collectionKey/PAF8KM8K/itemKey/QR77EGA6 |
||||||
|
Inferred from the following. "About two millennia ago, during the Middle Woodland period, which spanned several hundred years, intergroup conflict ending in violence was largely absent from eastern North America. Compared to both earlier Archaic hunter-gatherers and later village agriculturalists, few Middle Woodland skeletons have projectile points lodged in bones, distinctive stone-axe injuries, or signs of mutilation such as decapitation and scalping. [...] The scarcity of such injuries is not a result of inadequate sampling, since there are large and well-preserved skeletal collections dating to this period, especially from the Midwest. A rather sudden adoption of food-procurement practices that shifted the balance between resources and consumers to a time of relative plenty presumably played a big part in establishing conditions conducive to openness among otherwise separate groups."
[1]
[1]: (Milner, Chaplin and Zavodny 2013, 96-97) Milner, George, George Chaplin, and Emily Zavodny. 2013. “Conflict and Societal Change in Late Prehistoric Eastern North America.” Evolutionary Anthropology 22: 96-102. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/collectionKey/PAF8KM8K/itemKey/QR77EGA6 |
||||||
|
Inferred from the following. "About two millennia ago, during the Middle Woodland period, which spanned several hundred years, intergroup conflict ending in violence was largely absent from eastern North America. Compared to both earlier Archaic hunter-gatherers and later village agriculturalists, few Middle Woodland skeletons have projectile points lodged in bones, distinctive stone-axe injuries, or signs of mutilation such as decapitation and scalping. [...] The scarcity of such injuries is not a result of inadequate sampling, since there are large and well-preserved skeletal collections dating to this period, especially from the Midwest. A rather sudden adoption of food-procurement practices that shifted the balance between resources and consumers to a time of relative plenty presumably played a big part in establishing conditions conducive to openness among otherwise separate groups." The situation only changed "[l]ate in the first millennium AD".
[1]
[1]: (Milner, Chaplin and Zavodny 2013, 96-97) Milner, George, George Chaplin, and Emily Zavodny. 2013. “Conflict and Societal Change in Late Prehistoric Eastern North America.” Evolutionary Anthropology 22: 96-102. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/collectionKey/PAF8KM8K/itemKey/QR77EGA6 |
||||||
|
Inferred from the following. "About two millennia ago, during the Middle Woodland period, which spanned several hundred years, intergroup conflict ending in violence was largely absent from eastern North America. Compared to both earlier Archaic hunter-gatherers and later village agriculturalists, few Middle Woodland skeletons have projectile points lodged in bones, distinctive stone-axe injuries, or signs of mutilation such as decapitation and scalping. [...] The scarcity of such injuries is not a result of inadequate sampling, since there are large and well-preserved skeletal collections dating to this period, especially from the Midwest. A rather sudden adoption of food-procurement practices that shifted the balance between resources and consumers to a time of relative plenty presumably played a big part in establishing conditions conducive to openness among otherwise separate groups." The situation only changed "[l]ate in the first millennium AD".
[1]
[1]: (Milner, Chaplin and Zavodny 2013, 96-97) Milner, George, George Chaplin, and Emily Zavodny. 2013. “Conflict and Societal Change in Late Prehistoric Eastern North America.” Evolutionary Anthropology 22: 96-102. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/collectionKey/PAF8KM8K/itemKey/QR77EGA6 |
||||||
|
Inferred from the following. "About two millennia ago, during the Middle Woodland period, which spanned several hundred years, intergroup conflict ending in violence was largely absent from eastern North America. Compared to both earlier Archaic hunter-gatherers and later village agriculturalists, few Middle Woodland skeletons have projectile points lodged in bones, distinctive stone-axe injuries, or signs of mutilation such as decapitation and scalping. [...] The scarcity of such injuries is not a result of inadequate sampling, since there are large and well-preserved skeletal collections dating to this period, especially from the Midwest. A rather sudden adoption of food-procurement practices that shifted the balance between resources and consumers to a time of relative plenty presumably played a big part in establishing conditions conducive to openness among otherwise separate groups." The situation only changed "[l]ate in the first millennium AD".
[1]
[1]: (Milner, Chaplin and Zavodny 2013, 96-97) Milner, George, George Chaplin, and Emily Zavodny. 2013. “Conflict and Societal Change in Late Prehistoric Eastern North America.” Evolutionary Anthropology 22: 96-102. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/collectionKey/PAF8KM8K/itemKey/QR77EGA6 |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
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 |
||||||
|
Palisade 2.8km in length, 15m in height according to Iseminger et al.
[1]
Whilst the mounds were easily built over hundreds of years by a small number of workers, working few hours in a year, "partial walls were useless" and so arguably amounted to the more impressive challenge.
[1]
In terms of time and resources the first palisade was the biggest challenge because subsequent palisades could initially incorporate what was left standing from the earlier one.
[1]
Conservative estimate, 291,000 hours spent building each palisade. "1,000 workers could have erected a formidable wall in two to three months"
[1]
"If Cahokia’s residents could afford to move more slowly, taking nine months to complete the job, then 220 to 340 laborers were needed."
[1]
[1]: (Milner 2006, 148) |
||||||
|
Palisades. Palisade 2.8km in length, 15m in height according to Iseminger et al.
[1]
Whilst the mounds were easily built over hundreds of years by a small number of workers, working few hours in a year, "partial walls were useless" and so arguably amounted to the more impressive challenge.
[1]
In terms of time and resources the first palisade was the biggest challenge because subsequent palisades could initially incorporate what was left standing from the earlier one.
[1]
Conservative estimate, 291,000 hours spent building each palisade. "1,000 workers could have erected a formidable wall in two to three months"
[1]
"If Cahokia’s residents could afford to move more slowly, taking nine months to complete the job, then 220 to 340 laborers were needed."
[1]
[1]: (Milner 2006, 148) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
"The term “Memotian” culture is now used to refer to 40 circular ramparted and moated sites (banteay kou in Khmer) in a hilly area of east Cambodia and a corner of southwest Vietnam measuring 85 kilometers east-west and 35 kilometers north-south, occupied between the early third millennium to early first millennium bce; about 15 have been intensively studied. The oldest sites seem to cluster in the west of this area, from whence they spread gradually east. Their components include an outer rampart, interior depression or “moat”, and a gap in the rampart, probably an entrance/exit."
[1]
[1]: (Miksic and Goh 2016: 113) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/2EZ3CBBS. |
||||||
|
"The term “Memotian” culture is now used to refer to 40 circular ramparted and moated sites (banteay kou in Khmer) in a hilly area of east Cambodia and a corner of southwest Vietnam measuring 85 kilometers east-west and 35 kilometers north-south, occupied between the early third millennium to early first millennium bce; about 15 have been intensively studied. The oldest sites seem to cluster in the west of this area, from whence they spread gradually east. Their components include an outer rampart, interior depression or “moat”, and a gap in the rampart, probably an entrance/exit."
[1]
[1]: (Miksic and Goh 2016: 113) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/2EZ3CBBS. |
||||||
|
Walls found at Oc Eco are brick i.e. mud wall so counts as a rampart rather than a stone wall.
|
||||||
|
A brick wall is not a stone wall.
|
||||||
|
’We do not know how much of the walled area of Yasodharapura was settled nor the size of its population.’
[1]
’The wall [of Angkor Thom] is entirely made of superimposed blocks of stone; it is about two [sic] fathoms high. The bonding of the stones is very compact and solid, and no weeds are found there. There is no crenellation.’ On the ramparts, in certain places gangling [kuang-lang, kouang-lang] trees have been planted. At regular distances are found empty casemates. The inner side of the wall is like a ramp wider than ten fathoms. On top of each ramp are huge doors, closed at night, and open in the morning. There are also guards at the gates.’
[2]
[1]: (Miksic 2007, p. 18) [2]: (Zhou and Smithies 2001, p. 19) |
||||||
|
’The wall [of Angkor Thom] is entirely made of superimposed blocks of stone; it is about two [sic] fathoms high. The bonding of the stones is very compact and solid, and no weeds are found there. There is no crenellation.’ On the ramparts, in certain places gangling [kuang-lang, kouang-lang] trees have been planted. At regular distances are found empty casemates. The inner side of the wall is like a ramp wider than ten fathoms. On top of each ramp are huge doors, closed at night, and open in the morning. There are also guards at the gates.’
[1]
’From the remains and traces, it seems that their religious edifices were also mostly of wood, with brick foundation and wandaf’a (p. 33), and with stone slabs sometimes used for frames of doors and windows; although, as will be seen, in the latter part of this period, brick edifices were not uncommon and even stone structures were probably not unknown. Even to the end of its architectural greatness, except for walls, gates, towers, etc., Cambodia used stone and brick for religious constructions only. This was because their architects did not know the principle of the true arch and used the "false arch," also known as overlapping or corbelling: i.e., from opposite sides, each succeeding pair of bricks or stones projected over the opening to be vaulted until the gap was small enough to be closed by a single brick or stone.’
[2]
’This royal city [Angkor Thom] probably resembled the Forbidden City of Beijing: a walled complex contain- ing religious and administrative officials and religious sanctuaries. The wall, 3 kilometers (1.8 miles) on each side and 8 meters (26.5 feet) high, is bordered by a moat 100 meters (330 feet) wide. Angkor Thom is an exact square, the sides of which run exactly north-south and east-west. Each wall has a gate in the middle, entered by a bridge over the moat.’
[3]
[1]: (Zhou and Smithies 2001, p. 19) [2]: (Briggs 1951, p. 32) [3]: (Miksic 2007, p. 20) |
||||||
|
’The wall [of Angkor Thom] is entirely made of superimposed blocks of stone; it is about two [sic] fathoms high. The bonding of the stones is very compact and solid, and no weeds are found there. There is no crenellation.’ On the ramparts, in certain places gangling [kuang-lang, kouang-lang] trees have been planted. At regular distances are found empty casemates. The inner side of the wall is like a ramp wider than ten fathoms. On top of each ramp are huge doors, closed at night, and open in the morning. There are also guards at the gates.’
[1]
’From the remains and traces, it seems that their religious edifices were also mostly of wood, with brick foundation and wandaf’a (p. 33), and with stone slabs sometimes used for frames of doors and windows; although, as will be seen, in the latter part of this period, brick edifices were not uncommon and even stone structures were probably not unknown. Even to the end of its architectural greatness, except for walls, gates, towers, etc., Cambodia used stone and brick for religious constructions only. This was because their architects did not know the principle of the true arch and used the "false arch," also known as overlapping or corbelling: i.e., from opposite sides, each succeeding pair of bricks or stones projected over the opening to be vaulted until the gap was small enough to be closed by a single brick or stone.’
[2]
’This royal city [Angkor Thom] probably resembled the Forbidden City of Beijing: a walled complex contain- ing religious and administrative officials and religious sanctuaries. The wall, 3 kilometers (1.8 miles) on each side and 8 meters (26.5 feet) high, is bordered by a moat 100 meters (330 feet) wide. Angkor Thom is an exact square, the sides of which run exactly north-south and east-west. Each wall has a gate in the middle, entered by a bridge over the moat.’
[3]
[1]: (Zhou and Smithies 2001, p. 19) [2]: (Briggs 1951, p. 32) [3]: (Miksic 2007, p. 20) |
||||||
|
’The wall [of Angkor Thom] is entirely made of superimposed blocks of stone; it is about two [sic] fathoms high. The bonding of the stones is very compact and solid, and no weeds are found there. There is no crenellation.’ On the ramparts, in certain places gangling [kuang-lang, kouang-lang] trees have been planted. At regular distances are found empty casemates. The inner side of the wall is like a ramp wider than ten fathoms. On top of each ramp are huge doors, closed at night, and open in the morning. There are also guards at the gates.’
[1]
’From the remains and traces, it seems that their religious edifices were also mostly of wood, with brick foundation and wandaf’a (p. 33), and with stone slabs sometimes used for frames of doors and windows; although, as will be seen, in the latter part of this period, brick edifices were not uncommon and even stone structures were probably not unknown. Even to the end of its architectural greatness, except for walls, gates, towers, etc., Cambodia used stone and brick for religious constructions only. This was because their architects did not know the principle of the true arch and used the "false arch," also known as overlapping or corbelling: i.e., from opposite sides, each succeeding pair of bricks or stones projected over the opening to be vaulted until the gap was small enough to be closed by a single brick or stone.’
[2]
[1]: (Zhou and Smithies 2001, p. 19) [2]: (Briggs 1951, p. 32) |
||||||
|
"Aside from occasional exceptions, [...] stone fortifications do not appear to have been favored after the classical period. [...] Building stone walls was time-consuming and probably expensive. The stone was difficult to procure and to work, whereas brick was much more readily produced. a transition from stone to brick in temple building from the classical period into the early modern period was thus accompanied by the same general shift in fortification building."
[1]
[1]: (Charney 2004, p. 79) |
||||||
|
Inferred from the fact that, in early modern times, there had been a shift from stone fortification to brick fortification: "Aside from occasional exceptions, [...] stone fortifications do not appear to have been favored after the classical period. [...] Building stone walls was time-consuming and probably expensive. The stone was difficult to procure and to work, whereas brick was much more readily produced. a transition from stone to brick in temple building from the classical period into the early modern period was thus accompanied by the same general shift in fortification building."
[1]
[1]: (Charney 2004, p. 79) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Ratu Boko had stone walls as defensive structure.
[1]
Borobudur stone laid without mortar - this was a temple. (EXTERNAL_INLINE_LINK: http://syukranmuhaiya.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/borobudur.html )
[1]: (Millet in Miksic 2003, 74) |
||||||
|
Ratu Boko had stone walls as defensive structure.
[1]
Borobudur stone laid without mortar - this was a temple. (EXTERNAL_INLINE_LINK: http://syukranmuhaiya.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/borobudur.html )
[1]: (Millet in Miksic 2003, 74) |
||||||
|
According to Miksic the Majapahit capital did not seem to have any sort of defensive perimeter.
[1]
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’.
[2]
[1]: (Miksic 2000, 115) [2]: (Kumara 2007, 161) Sasiprabha Kumara. 2007. Sanskrit Across Cultures. Special Centre for Sanskrit Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University. New Delhi. |
||||||
|
Settlements were sometimes surrounded with stone walls for better protection: ’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]
’All lineage buildings normally stand on land to whose soil the lineage, or some member of it, holds provisional or full title. If this is not feasible, the jimw may be built by the husbands of the lineage women on land held by one of them. In such a case his children acquire provisional title to the house and land on which it stands, receiving them as a niffag from their father. With the mwääniici of their lineage acting as guardian, the house and its site became a part of the property of the lineage whose women live there. Dwelling sites used to be shifted about once in a generation’s time, if the lineage had sufficient lands at its disposal. The purpose was to keep its house near breadfruit trees which were bearing well, so that a good supply of this staple food would always be near at hand. In the old days an jimw was sometimes surrounded by a stone wall for defensive purposes.’
[2]
We have assumed non-mortared walls for the time being.
[1]: Bollig, Laurentius 1927. “Inhabitants Of The Truk Islands: Religion, Life And A Short Grammar Of A Micronesian People”, 113 [2]: Goodenough, Ward Hunt 1951. “Property, Kin, And Community On Truk”, 69 |
||||||
|
Settlements were sometimes surrounded with stone walls for better protection: ’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]
’All lineage buildings normally stand on land to whose soil the lineage, or some member of it, holds provisional or full title. If this is not feasible, the jimw may be built by the husbands of the lineage women on land held by one of them. In such a case his children acquire provisional title to the house and land on which it stands, receiving them as a niffag from their father. With the mwääniici of their lineage acting as guardian, the house and its site became a part of the property of the lineage whose women live there. Dwelling sites used to be shifted about once in a generation’s time, if the lineage had sufficient lands at its disposal. The purpose was to keep its house near breadfruit trees which were bearing well, so that a good supply of this staple food would always be near at hand. In the old days an jimw was sometimes surrounded by a stone wall for defensive purposes.’
[2]
We have assumed non-mortared walls for the time being.
[1]: Bollig, Laurentius 1927. “Inhabitants Of The Truk Islands: Religion, Life And A Short Grammar Of A Micronesian People”, 113 [2]: Goodenough, Ward Hunt 1951. “Property, Kin, And Community On Truk”, 69 |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
"Romans were so fond of the texture effect of opus quadratum that they continued to use this technique even after having developed more effective kinds of masonry."
[1]
Inferred absent because "texture effect" should be irrelevant in a military context and Romans of this period had access to motar.
[1]: (http://www.romeartlover.it/Costroma.html) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
"In the physical domain, Ollantaytambo also exemplifes their bent for modifying the terrain and adapting their designs to existing land forms. Taking advantage of a meander in the Urubamba, engineers diverted the water ow from the le bank to the right and back again and also channelized the Río Patakancha where it owed through the site (Protzen 1993: 22). e eleven expansive terraces that face the settlement gracefully blended in with the natural slope of the piedmont. In 1536, their steep stone walls helped to repel the Spanish expedition sent against Manqo Inka. e Incas even used the waterworks in their defense, as they ooded the valley where the Spanish. were attacking, handing them their only real defeat of the campaign (P. Pizarro 1986: 146-8). "
[1]
"Troops defending fortified locations responded with a similar array of weaponry, to which they added large boulders rolled down onto advancing forces. Piles of hundreds of sling stones lining the interior of defensive walls can still be found at various Inca forts, such as Cerro del Inga, Chile (Planella et al. 1991: 407)."
[2]
[1]: D’Altroy 2014, 224) [2]: (D’Altroy 2014, 345-347) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
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]
Walls existed but not known what materials were used or whether the walls were mortared or un-mortared.
[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. |
||||||
|
Towns were protected by "high walls".
[1]
Satavahana cities "were surrounded by high walls, ramparts and gates constructed with brick and mortar."
[2]
[1]: S. Kamath, A Concise History of Karnataka (1980), p. 27 [2]: (Roy 2013, 20) Kaushik Roy. 2013 Military Manpower, Armies and Warfare in South Asia. Routledge. London. |
||||||
|
"Bilav - Kuji Nala, district Nagpur. Remains of fortification wall.
[1]
During the Satavahana period towns were protected by "high walls"
[2]
but the construction materials and methods are not mentioned.
[1]: (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. [2]: S. Kamath, A Concise History of Karnataka (1980), p. 27 |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Forts were built.
[1]
Reference for Vijayanagara (successor polity) that may have more general relevance: "Walls made out of earth, which are common in the south of India, appear to have been used at settlements of inferior status, while stone walls were constructed around settlements which exercised some level of authority over the surrounding area."
[2]
The walls of Vijayanagara were non-mortared.
[1]: J. Duncan M. Derrett, The Hoysalas (1957), p. 95 [2]: (Howes 2003, 45) Jennifer Howes. 2003. The Courts of Pre-colonial South India: Material Culture and Kingship. RoutledgeCurzon. London. |
||||||
|
"The Kingdom of Kampili on the Raichur Doab between the Krishna and Tungabhadra rivers was protected by the strong forts of Kunmata and Anegondi. The Muslim armies repeatedly attacked Kampili and captured Kunmata on their third attempt."
[1]
-- how were the effective fortifications at Kunamata and Anegondi built?
[1]: (Sadasivan 2011, 191) Sadasiva, Balaju. 2011. The Dancing Girl: A History of Early India. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. |
||||||
|
Stone walls were "permitted only in the case of places on the frontier" and the "most important forts in the interior".
[1]
"The one variety of monument which most significantly demonstrates the hierarchical arrangement of settlements under Vijayanagara’s control is its walls. ... masonry was employed in the construction of walls at Vijayanagara. Mortar appears not to have been used, but other stone walls elsewhere on the site show evidence of once having been covered by a layer of plaster. Granite was cut into large rectangular blocks and was held in place by smaller pieces of cut stone. Although arches are found at the top of the structure, the actual gateway is held up by corbels which support a horizontal stone slab. This gateway represents a mere fragment of the once extensive network of stone walls which surrounded Vijayanagara duing the sixteenth century ..."
[2]
[1]: (Ramayanna 1986, p. 120) [2]: (Howes 2003, 44-45) Jennifer Howes. 2003. The Courts of Pre-colonial South India: Material Culture and Kingship. RoutledgeCurzon. London. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
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. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
"Stone in various forms, as discussed above, was frequently used to build fortifications. No data exist whereby the procurement of stone from a great distance can be postulated in the construction process for MB fortifications. Aside from the effort required to shape large chunks of stone into roughly hewn blocks for the foundations of gates (e.g., Tuqan), the cyclopean blocks used in revetment walls (e.g., Shechem), and the more delicately carved orthostats (e.g., Alalah, Ebla, Hazor, Shechem, etc.), a considerable amount of effort appears to have been expended to obtain crushed or chipped stone which was used in rampart fills."
[1]
However, more commonly stone was used in the foundation of defensive walls, which were made of mudbrick.
[1]: Burke (2004:160). |
||||||
|
Massive Canaanite-style fortifications persisted from the Bronze Age, and in many cases were improved upon. For example, "[The Late Bronze Age fortification at Beirut] was replaced before the Early Iron Age by a massive new stone fortification wall with a large glacis of steeper angle (33 degrees) compared to the curved perimeter of the settlement mound."
[1]
[1]: Markoe (2000:81). |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Chaldea and Assyria: "What we find in the remarkable encrusted earth ramparts of Chaldea ... Stone was not used at all, but the clay brick walls were given a dressing of stucco or fired brick." "Like the Assyrian walls on which they are modeled, Persian walls were built of air-dried brick".
[1]
[1]: (Semper 2004, 754-755) Gottfried Semper. 2004. Style in the Technical and Tectonic Arts; Or, Practical Aesthetics. Getty Publications. Los Angeles. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Many cities were not fortified and lacked walls. Major temples were fortified structures. Do we have any examples of non-mortared walls?
|
||||||
|
“…a new type of stone dressing developed in the mid second century BC. Stones were cut with façades showing bosses and polished margins on all sides, and not only on one vertical and one horizontal side as during the Iron Age and at the beginning of this period. The blocks were normally laid and set in walls according to the ‘headers and stretchers’ tradition, as in the walls of Hasmonaean fortifications. Generally, on flat terrain city walls followed the city’s trace. On hilly sites, as in Hasmonaean Jerusalem, there is a curious incongruity between the town plan and the city walls: while the city’s shape maintained a rigid orthogonal system, the city walls seemed to take topographical features into consideration."
[1]
[1]: Rocca (2008). |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
During campaigns rapidly built shelters were the norm: ’In the past these rapidly built shelters for farming and hunting were also used by the Asante army. British forces came across ‘little huts with low sloping roofs, thatched with green broad leaves of the plantain. Each hut or lean-to had a couple of bamboo bedsteads on posts… They had also taken the pains to make comfortable settees with backs’. Indeed. Sir Garnet Wolseley was so impressed with the camp-beds that he urged his troops to copy them.’
[1]
These were camps/barracks rather than fortifications built for defensive purposes.
[1]: McLeod, M. D. (Malcolm D.) 1981. “Asante”, 23 |
||||||
|
[The walls were non-mortared.]
|
||||||
|
There is no evidence of stone walls at Nausharo.
[1]
However the claimed unsuitability of walls and gates is somewhat subjective, and ignores sites with bastions and ‘double-axis’ gateways (such as Dholavira and Surkotada in Gujarat, Bisht 1991; Joshi 1990).
[2]
[1]: Agrawal, D. P. (2007) The Indus Civilization: An interdisciplinary perspective. Aryan Books International: New Delhi. [2]: Cork, E. (2005) Peaceful Harappans? Reviewing the evidence for the absence of warfare in the Indus Civilisation of north-west India and Pakistan (c. 2500-1900 BC). Antiquity (79): 411-423. p420 |
||||||
|
There is no evidence of stone walls at Nausharo.
[1]
However - the claimed unsuitability of walls and gates is somewhat subjective, and ignores sites with bastions and ‘double-axis’ gateways (such as Dholavira and Surkotada in Gujarat, Bisht 1991; Joshi 1990).
[2]
[1]: Agrawal, D. P. (2007) The Indus Civilization: An interdisciplinary perspective. Aryan Books International: New Delhi. [2]: Cork, E. (2005) Peaceful Harappans? Reviewing the evidence for the absence of warfare in the Indus Civilisation of north-west India and Pakistan (c. 2500-1900 BC). Antiquity (79): 411-423. p420 |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
"according to Koldewey, Achaemenid, Seleucid, and Parthian builders generally used mud mortar." Quick-setting gypsum also known from Sassanian buildings.
[1]
"Other than a few cities in Mesopotamia, Parthian cities seem not to have been surrounded by walls, although some defensive preparations, such as the aforementioned fortresses and moats, have been identified in some sites."
[2]
[1]: (Roger and Moorey 1999, 331) Roger, Peter. Moorey, Stuart. 1999. Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries: The Archaeological Evidence. Eisenbrauns. [2]: Rezakhani, Khodadad. 2016. Arsacid Society and Culture. Accessed 06.09.2016: https://iranologie.com/the-history-page/the-arsacid-empire/arsacid-society-and-culture/ |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
unknown whether walls were mortared
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
There seems to be at least some dry stone working at the fort of Chittogarh. However, it’s not easy to tell just from photographs on the internet whether this is true of any of the defensive walls and this fort was originally built in an earlier era.
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
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.
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
"Tomb-era villages were quite different from their Yayoi predecessors. ... Villages might range from ten to sixty or more pit dwellings, along with several storehouses, and residences might be grouped in units of two or three, suggesting that they contained extended families. In larger settlements, archaeologists have uncovered the remains of sizable wooden structures, sometimes surrounded by a moat or stone walls."
[1]
[1]: (Farris 2009, 17) William Wayne Farris. 2009. Japan To 1600: A Social and Economic History. University of Hawai’i Press. Honolulu. |
||||||
|
"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]
’Interestingly enough, after the fiasco of 663, when the Japanese in trying to aid Paekche were disastrously routed in a naval battle off the west coast of Korea, they rushed home to start building defenses against an expected invasion from Silla. About eighteen hilltops were fortified with stone walls in north Kyushu’.
[2]
Were the stone walls mortared or unmortared?
[1]: (Turnball 2002) Turnball, S. 2002. Siege Weapons of the Far East (1): AD 612-1300. Osprey Publishing. [2]: Kidder Jr., J. Edward, 2007. Himiko and Japan’s Elusive Kingdom of Yamatai (Honolulu: Hawaii University Press). p. 126 |
||||||
|
"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]
Some stone walls were built during the Asuka period in the 7th century: "eighteen hilltops were fortified with stone walls in north Kyushu’.
[2]
[1]: (Turnball 2002) Turnball, S. 2002. Siege Weapons of the Far East (1): AD 612-1300. Osprey Publishing. [2]: Kidder Jr., J. Edward, 2007. Himiko and Japan’s Elusive Kingdom of Yamatai (Honolulu: Hawaii University Press). p. 126 |
||||||
|
1274 CE. hardly any use seems to have been made of stone at Kamakura, even though fortifications built of stone had recently made a brief reappearance on the Japanese scene as a result of the attempt by Kublai Khan, the Yuan (Mongol) Emperor of China, to invade Japan in 1274’
[1]
"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]: Turnbull, Stephen. 2008. Japanese Castles AD 250--1540. Vol. 74. Osprey Publishing. P.19. [2]: (Turnball 2002) Turnball, S. 2002. Siege Weapons of the Far East (1): AD 612-1300. Osprey Publishing. |
||||||
|
’Castle towns trace their origin to the Muromachi period and the construction of wooden defenses typically located on hills for reasons of protection and surveillance. These fortifications were the precursors to the castles and castle-building styles that grew more elaborate during the Warring States period.
[1]
[1]: Deal, William E. 2005. Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. Oxford University Press. p.60. |
||||||
|
Eventually, stone bases began to be used, encasing the hilltop in a layer of fine pebbles, and then a layer of larger rocks over that, with no mortar.
[1]
‘He [Nobunaga] decided to build the castle completely of stone something, as I have said; quite unknown in Japan. As there was no stone available for the work, he ordered many stone idols to be pulled down, and the men tied ropes around the necks of these and dragged them to the site.’
[2]
ET: also Nobunaga was Warring States period.
[1]: Stephen Turnbull. 2003. Japanese Castles 1540-1640. Osprey Publishing. Oxford. [2]: Mason, Richard Henry Pitt. 1997. A History of Japan: Revised Edition. Tuttle Publishing.p.185 |
||||||
|
Momoyama Period: "The stone walls so characteristic of the Japanese castle were built on a foundation of earth covered with small stones over which were placed the larger surface stones. Except at the corners, which were fashioned of stone slabs arranged much like the corner of a brick wall, the stones were of no uniform size or pattern. Generally, however, they were wedge-shaped and were placed with the smaller end of the wedge at the surface and the larger on the inside. This arrangement held them locked in position by their own weight and made them resistant to earthquakes. It also necessitated giving the wall a curve, and records show that this was geometrically determined. The basic earthen wall was known as a doi and the finished wall of stone as an ishigaki. Since no mortar was used to hold the stones in place, free drainage of water was permitted. Nevertheless, openings for drainage were used, although they were kept small so as not to be of advantage to the enemy."
[1]
’Despite their imposing appearances, the castles of the Azuchi- Momyama epoch were not constructed only for defense. Daimyo wished to develop commercially thriving towns around their fortresses and therefore often selected castle sites more on the basis of economic than military considerations. But above all, the typical Azuchi-Momoyama daimyo conceived of the castle as a means to impress the world with his grandeur and power. Thus, although castles of the time were noteworthy because of their broad, deep moats and huge protective walls made of stone, their most distinctive features were multistoried donjons or keeps, which were of little use militarily but were highly decorative and showy.’
[2]
‘He [Nobunaga] decided to build the castle completely of stone something, as I have said; quite unknown in Japan. As there was no stone available for the work, he ordered many stone idols to be pulled down, and the men tied ropes around the necks of these and dragged them to the site.’
[3]
[1]: Kirby, John. 1962. From Castle to Teahouse: Japanese Architecture of the Momoyama Period. Tuttle Publishing. [2]: Yamamura, Kozo (ed). 2008. The Cambridge History of Japan. Vol. 3. Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press [sixth edition].p.492 [3]: Mason, Richard Henry Pitt. 1997. A History of Japan: Revised Edition. Tuttle Publishing.p.185 |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
No references in the literature. RA.
|
||||||
|
No information in the archaeological evidence for this time, even if stone architecture has been found in Göbekli Tepe, it does not appear to be for military purposes
[1]
[1]: https://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/iss/kap_a/advanced/ta_1_2b.html |
||||||
|
No information in the archaeological evidence for this time, even if stone architecture has been found in Göbekli Tepe, it does not appear to be for military purposes
[1]
[1]: https://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/iss/kap_a/advanced/ta_1_2b.html |
||||||
|
No information in the archaeological evidence for this time, even if stone architecture has been found in Göbekli Tepe, it does not appear to be for military purposes
[1]
[1]: https://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/iss/kap_a/advanced/ta_1_2b.html |
||||||
|
No information in the archaeological evidence for this time, even if stone architecture has been found in Göbekli Tepe, it does not appear to be for military purposes
[1]
[1]: https://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/iss/kap_a/advanced/ta_1_2b.html |
||||||
|
’At Hacınebi already in Level A evidence for a massive stone buttressed wall, nearly four meters in height, and monumental mudbrick platforms, were discovered’.
[1]
[1]: Rana Özbal, ‘The Chalcolithic of Southeast Anatolia’, The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia: (10,000-323 BCE), Edited by Gregory McMahon and Sharon Steadman, 2011, p. 187 |
||||||
|
’At Hacınebi already in Level A evidence for a massive stone buttressed wall, nearly four meters in height, and monumental mudbrick platforms, were discovered’.
[1]
[1]: Rana Özbal, ‘The Chalcolithic of Southeast Anatolia’, The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia: (10,000-323 BCE), Edited by Gregory McMahon and Sharon Steadman, 2011, p. 187 |
||||||
|
not found in settlements
|
||||||
|
The following code clearly states the walls were always made of mudbrick even if they were build upon stone ground it does not seem to be a ’stone wall’ so I have coded this as absent from a blank code and pasted in the following quote: ’(e.g. Hattusa) The fortification walls were built in a casemate system with a width of up to 8 m. Two parallel walls were connected by diagonal walls, and the compartments thus constructed were filled with rubble. Towers protruded at regular intervals from the outer face of the walls. The walls are always situated on earthen ramparts, which provided protection against battering rams. As usual in Hittite architecture, the foundations and the lower parts of the walls were made of stone, whereas the upper parts consisted of a timber-framed structure of mud-brick. The superstructure of the walls can be reconstructed with a high degree of certainty thanks to the discovery of vessels showing fortification walls with battlements and towers. The gates were always flanked by towers. The Lion’s Gate in Hattusa was approached via a ramp, which ran parallel to the wall to the right, thus exposing the unshielded side of potential attackers to fire from the wall. Every gate could be closed on the outer and inner side by heavy wooden doors, which could be bolted with copper bars. A peculiarity of Hittite fortifications is the so-called postern, a narrow tunnel of up to 50 m in length and 3-4 m in width and height that led through the earthen ramparts on which the fortification stood. According to one theory, these posterns may have served as sally ports, enabling the defenders to make quick sorties. The length and the narrowness of the posterns made them easily defendable against intruders who, on the other hand, were exposed to fire from the fortification walls during their approach.’
[1]
[1]: Lorenz J. and I. Schrakamp (2011) Hittite Military and Warfare, pp. 141 [In:] H. Genz and D. P. Mielke (ed.) Insights Into Hittite History And Archaeology, Colloquia Antiqua 2, Leuven, Paris, Walpole MA: PEETERS, pp. 125-151 |
||||||
|
same as the previous polity: ’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 |
||||||
|
same as the previous polity: ’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 |
||||||
|
following evidence between 1000 BCE and 700 BCE: 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 |
||||||
|
following evidence between 1000 BCE and 700 BCE: 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 |
||||||
|
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]
‘Brian Rose provided a better definition of the walled Lower Town to the south of the Citadel and confirmed the presence of a similar area to the north that had been suspected based on massive stone walls in the Sakarya River bed’
[2]
[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 [2]: Mary M. Voigt, ‘Gordion: The Changing Political and Economic Roles of a First Millennium B.C.E. City’, The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia: (10,000-323 BCE), Edited by Gregory McMahon and Sharon Steadman, 2011, p. 1074 |
||||||
|
’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 |
||||||
|
’By the end of Croesus’s reign, Sardis was a city of monumental architecture that included: a fortification wall twenty meters thick (figure 52.3) that enclosed a lower city area of about 108 hectares; terraces of white ashlar masonry that regularized natural slopes and contours of the acropolis (figures 52.4, 52.5; Ratté 2011); probably the triple-wall defenses of the acropolis—if they are not Persian—that later impressed Alexander the Great (Arrian, Anabasis Alexandri 1.17.5; Lucian, Charon 9); three huge tumuli at Bin Tepe—the largest more than 350 m in diameter (figure 52.6)—that were visible from afar and heralded the city to those approaching it (Roosevelt 2009).’
[1]
[1]: Crawford H. Greenewalt, ‘Sardis: A First Millennium B.C.E. Capital in Western Anatolia’, The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia: (10,000-323 BCE), Edited by Gregory McMahon and Sharon Steadman, 2011, p.1117 |
||||||
|
Lysimachus defeated Thracian cities with dry-stone walls, including Odessus, defeated during the revolt of 313 BCE by Lysimachus.
[1]
This was essentially an earth rampart with stone facing (Waterfield’s quote contains more detail) so am coding it as mortared. A true non-mortared defensive wall should be self-supporting without any other material (mortar). This one was directly backed by earth which helped bind the stones together. Maybe it can be coded both ways, coding suspected unknown for now.
[1]: Lund, H. S. (1992) Lysimachus: A study in early Hellenistic kingship. Routledge: London and New York. p40 |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
"Romans were so fond of the texture effect of opus quadratum that they continued to use this technique even after having developed more effective kinds of masonry."
[1]
[1]: (http://www.romeartlover.it/Costroma.html) |
||||||
|
"Romans were so fond of the texture effect of opus quadratum that they continued to use this technique even after having developed more effective kinds of masonry."
[1]
[1]: (http://www.romeartlover.it/Costroma.html) |
||||||
|
"Romans were so fond of the texture effect of opus quadratum that they continued to use this technique even after having developed more effective kinds of masonry."
[1]
Inferred absent because "texture effect" should be irrelevant in a military context and on the assumption Romans of this period had access to motar.
[1]: (http://www.romeartlover.it/Costroma.html) |
||||||
|
"Romans were so fond of the texture effect of opus quadratum that they continued to use this technique even after having developed more effective kinds of masonry."
[1]
Inferred absent because "texture effect" should be irrelevant in a military context and Romans of this period had access to motar.
[1]: (http://www.romeartlover.it/Costroma.html) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
The Leonine Walls, built starting in 848, are a good example.
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Only gravel is mentioned: "When speaking of structures, we should also mention the fact that in the old days the Yakuts knew how to make fortifications or ostrozhki, as they were called in the Russian texts of the 17th century. For example, in 1636-1637, during the campaign against the Kangalastsy, the Russian Cossacks found that “they had built strong forts with two walls covered with gravel, and surrounded by snow and water;” it was only after a two-day assault that the Cossacks managed to take one of these forts. In 1642 the Russians also took a Sakha fortress after great difficulty: “. . . the fort was made with two walls, the space between the walls was filled with earth, and there were log towers.” At a later stage these fortifications disappeared, and no one has described them since in detail. But even in the 19th century it was possible to find special tower-like barns here and there, which belonged to the Toyons."
[1]
We have assumed that these gravel coverings can be considered non-mortared stone walls. This remains in need of confirmation.
[1]: Tokarev, S. A., and Gurvich I. S. 1964. “Yakuts.” Peoples Of Siberia, 265 |
||||||
|
Only gravel is mentioned: "When speaking of structures, we should also mention the fact that in the old days the Yakuts knew how to make fortifications or ostrozhki, as they were called in the Russian texts of the 17th century. For example, in 1636-1637, during the campaign against the Kangalastsy, the Russian Cossacks found that “they had built strong forts with two walls covered with gravel, and surrounded by snow and water;” it was only after a two-day assault that the Cossacks managed to take one of these forts. In 1642 the Russians also took a Yakut fortress after great difficulty: “. . . the fort was made with two walls, the space between the walls was filled with earth, and there were log towers.” At a later stage these fortifications disappeared, and no one has described them since in detail. But even in the 19th century it was possible to find special tower-like barns here and there, which belonged to the Toyons."
[1]
We have assumed that these gravel coverings can be considered non-mortared stone walls. This remains in need of confirmation.
[1]: Tokarev, S. A., and Gurvich I. S. 1964. “Yakuts.” Peoples Of Siberia, 265 |
||||||
|
Only gravel is mentioned: "When speaking of structures, we should also mention the fact that in the old days the Yakuts knew how to make fortifications or ostrozhki, as they were called in the Russian texts of the 17th century. For example, in 1636-1637, during the campaign against the Kangalastsy, the Russian Cossacks found that “they had built strong forts with two walls covered with gravel, and surrounded by snow and water;” it was only after a two-day assault that the Cossacks managed to take one of these forts. In 1642 the Russians also took a Yakut fortress after great difficulty: “. . . the fort was made with two walls, the space between the walls was filled with earth, and there were log towers.” At a later stage these fortifications disappeared, and no one has described them since in detail. But even in the 19th century it was possible to find special tower-like barns here and there, which belonged to the Toyons."
[1]
We have assumed that these gravel coverings can be considered non-mortared stone walls. This remains in need of confirmation.
[1]: Tokarev, S. A., and Gurvich I. S. 1964. “Yakuts.” Peoples Of Siberia, 265 |
||||||
|
War-leaders had forts constructed when in danger of attack: ’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.’
[1]
Stirling describes material evidence of reinforced palisades where both wood and stones were used in the construction of protective enclosures: ’On the Casu, a tributary of the Apaga River, were two large abandoned jivarías, both strongly fortified by means of an inner wall 6 or 8 inches from the main wall standing about 5 feet in height, the intervening space being filled with small boulders gathered from the river bed, thus affording an excellent barricade in case of attack. Just off the end of the building which was evidently considered least vulnerable there was a small room barely 15 feet square which was protected on all sides in the same manner, but was raised about 20 feet from the ground, supported by four stout posts and placed conveniently near the little door of the main building so that one could at once step on a notched tree trunk and climb to safety, throwing the ladder away. These places are used for the safety of women and children in times of raiding and as a final refuge. Should the enemy try to climb to the hut, a shower of rocks is dropped down upon them, a supply being kept ready for that purpose. Climbing into one of these curious towers, it was found to have convenient niches in order that the occupants could command a complete view of the clearing on all sides and any Indian being fortunate enough to own a rifle and ammunition could easily hold at bay a strong force. However, the purpose of the structure is primarily as a protection for the women while the male occupants of the jivaría fight the enemy with their lances and shields.’
[2]
[1]: Rivet, Paul. 1907. “Jivaro Indians: Geographic, Historical And Ethnographic Research.”, 617-618 [2]: Stirling, Matthew Williams. 1938. “Historical And Ethnographical Material On The Jivaro Indians.”, 60 |
||||||
|
"On the Casu, a tributary of the Apaga River, were two large abandoned jivarías, both strongly fortified by means of an inner wall 6 or 8 inches from the main wall standing about 5 feet in height, the intervening space being filled with small boulders gathered from the river bed, thus affording an excellent barricade in case of attack. Just off the end of the building which was evidently considered least vulnerable there was a small room barely 15 feet square which was protected on all sides in the same manner, but was raised about 20 feet from the ground, supported by four stout posts and placed conveniently near the little door of the main building so that one could at once step on a notched tree trunk and climb to safety, throwing the ladder away. These places are used for the safety of women and children in times of raiding and as a final refuge. Should the enemy try to climb to the hut, a shower of rocks is dropped down upon them, a supply being kept ready for that purpose. Climbing into one of these curious towers, it was found to have convenient niches in order that the occupants could command a complete view of the clearing on all sides and any Indian being fortunate enough to own a rifle and ammunition could easily hold at bay a strong force. However, the purpose of the structure is primarily as a protection for the women while the male occupants of the jivaría fight the enemy with their lances and shields."
[1]
[1]: Stirling, Matthew Williams. 1938. “Historical And Ethnographical Material On The Jivaro Indians.”, 60 |
||||||
|
visible in temple buildings; i.e. Temple of Karnak
|
||||||
|
Enclosure walls non-mortared?
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Many cities were not fortified and lacked walls. Major temples were fortified structures. Do we have any examples of non-mortared walls?
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
present in preceding Ayyubate Sultanate
|
||||||
|
present in preceding Ayyubate Sultanate
|
||||||
|
present in preceding Ayyubate Sultanate
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Earth ramparts rather than stone walls. Up until the Tang and Song Dynasties wide ramparts and ditches were a typical part of the defense system for a fortified town or city."
[1]
Stone-fronted walls "perhaps dateable to the period," have been found by archaeologists.
[2]
[1]: (Turnball 2002) Turnball, S. 2002. Siege Weapons of the Far East (1): AD 612-1300. Osprey Publishing. [2]: (Lovell 2006, 112) Lovell, Julia. 2006. The Great Wall: China Against the World 1000 BC-AD 2000. New York: Grove Press. |
||||||
|
"Engineers and laborers built walls by ramming thin layers of loose earth in wood frames to form the core of the ramparts. They then face them with brick and stone to prevent erosion by rain and constructed battlements on top to provide for their defense."
[1]
[1]: (Benn 2002, 45) Benn, Charles. 2002. China’s Golden Age: Everyday Life in the Tang Dynasty. Oxford: Oxford University Press. |
||||||
|
"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. |
||||||
|
"Engineers and laborers built walls by ramming thin layers of loose earth in wood frames to form the core of the ramparts. They then face them with brick and stone to prevent erosion by rain and constructed battlements on top to provide for their defense."
[1]
[1]: (Benn 2002, 45) Benn, Charles. 2002. China’s Golden Age: Everyday Life in the Tang Dynasty. Oxford: Oxford University Press. |
||||||
|
e.g. Great Wall
|
||||||
|
In the steppe region the preceding Khitan Empire had built walls without mortar. Inferred they have inherited/maintained existing walls or used similar methods themselves.
|
||||||
|
"The fortified settlement of Ivolga in Russia, situated near the modern city of Ulan-Ude, is the most investigated one among them. The site was an irregular rectangle with sides equal to approximately 200 and 300 m. On three sides, it was protected by fortification works of three walls alternating with three ditches while on the fourth side the site was protected by the Selenga river."
[1]
"Botanical analyses were conducted at the Ivolga site complex, an important example of a fortified settlement of 2,500-3,000 people specializing in agriculture and metal production in the Transbaikal region (Davydova 1995; Kradin 2005a). "
[2]
[1]: (Kradin 2011, 85) [2]: (Rogers 2012, 221) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Khar Bukhyn Balgas in Mongolia: "Built in stone by the Khitan, it was surrounded by ramparts and a moat."
[1]
Internet search of photographs - wals looked dry-stone in construction. Lots of tiny stones between bigger stones/rocks.
[1]: (Baumer 2016) Christoph Baumer. 2016. The History of Central Asia: The Age of Islam and the Mongols. I.B. Tauris. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Not discussed in consulted literature RA.
|
||||||
|
Not discussed in consulted literature RA.
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Late 3rd - early 2nd millennium BCE text: "Its walls were built from stone."
[1]
Examples at Ur.
[2]
[1]: The death of Gilgameš: c.1.8.1.3. The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (ETCSL). etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk. [2]: Wooley, L. 1965. Ur Excavations. Volume III. The Kassite Period and the Period of the Assyrian Kings. London: The British Museum. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
The Hadrami (non-Himyarite) city of Sumhuram (from late 1st BCE) on the far southern coast of Oman had a monumental building which, including foundations, covered 400m2, with walls 6.6 metres thick, double the thickness of the city wall.
[1]
The city of Sirwah (Sabaean) which covered about 3ha was "surrounded by an enormous wall, fortified by towers at several points, with the unusual feature of the monumental structures such as the Almaqah Temple and the ruler’s palace built into it."
[2]
Himyarites used stone to build dams, so it is likely they used stone for defensive works - question is whether the walls were mortared: "The masonry structures ... are built in a style that is regarded as Himyarite, being made of cut blocks of stone arranged in well-made horizontal courses. In addition, some dams are firmly dated to the Himyarite period by in situ inscriptoins."
[3]
Ed: I’ve seen some photos of walls that look constructed without mortar.
[1]: (Avanzini 2008, 610) Alessandra Avanzini. Notes for a history of Sumhuram and a new inscription of Yashhur’il. Alessandra Avanzini. ed. 2008. A Port In Arabia Between Rome And The Indian Ocean (3rd C. BC-5th C. AD) Khor Rori Report 2. L’ERMA di BRETSCHNEIDER. Rome. [2]: (Caton 2013, 41) Steven C Caton ed. 2013. Yemen. ABC-Clio. Santa Barbara [3]: (Wilkinson 2003, 192) Tony J Wilkinson. 2003. Archaeological Landscapes of the Near East. The University of Arizona Press. Tucson. |
||||||
|
The Hadrami (non-Himyarite) city of Sumhuram (from late 1st BCE) on the far southern coast of Oman had a monumental building which, including foundations, covered 400m2, with walls 6.6 metres thick, double the thickness of the city wall.
[1]
The city of Sirwah (Sabaean) which covered about 3ha was "surrounded by an enormous wall, fortified by towers at several points, with the unusual feature of the monumental structures such as the Almaqah Temple and the ruler’s palace built into it."
[2]
Himyarites used stone to build dams, so it is likely they used stone for defensive works - question is whether the walls were mortared: "The masonry structures ... are built in a style that is regarded as Himyarite, being made of cut blocks of stone arranged in well-made horizontal courses. In addition, some dams are firmly dated to the Himyarite period by in situ inscriptoins."
[3]
Ed: I’ve seen some photos of walls that look constructed without mortar.
[1]: (Avanzini 2008, 610) Alessandra Avanzini. Notes for a history of Sumhuram and a new inscription of Yashhur’il. Alessandra Avanzini. ed. 2008. A Port In Arabia Between Rome And The Indian Ocean (3rd C. BC-5th C. AD) Khor Rori Report 2. L’ERMA di BRETSCHNEIDER. Rome. [2]: (Caton 2013, 41) Steven C Caton ed. 2013. Yemen. ABC-Clio. Santa Barbara [3]: (Wilkinson 2003, 192) Tony J Wilkinson. 2003. Archaeological Landscapes of the Near East. The University of Arizona Press. Tucson. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Cannot find any data other than passing references to city walls and that the later Guptas didn’t build enough fortifications. The Guptas held a vast territory (where resources available differed greatly from one place to the next) so one could infer this included cities which already had stone walls, earth ramparts, moats and ditches, and palisades.
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
"Deloche notes that between the third and fourteenth centuries, the Hindu rulers constructed complex gateways, towers and thicker walls with earthen embankments in order to make their durgas (forts) impregnable."
[1]
Deloche’s studies on Indian fortifications are in French.
[1]: (Roy 2011, 123) Kaushik Roy. Historiographical Survey of the Writings on Indian Military History. Sabyasachi Bhattacharya. ed. 2011. Approaches to History: Essays in Indian Historiography. Primus Books. Delhi. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Walls used earth surrounding by bricks or wood
[1]
At Zhengzhou: "The two external protective walls were similarly pounded, and the outer one was coated with a layer of protective pebbles, presumably to forestall erosion by falling rain and perhaps buttress it against floodwaters."
[2]
Walls of Zhengzhou made out of earth.
[3]
No stone used for fortification. Stone walls present in the Neolithic period
[4]
[1]: (Lovell 2006, 31) [2]: (Peers 2011, 191) [3]: (Bagley 1999, 166) Bagley, R. in Loewe, Michael. Shaughnessy, Edward L.1999. The Cambridge History of Ancient China: From the Origins of Civilization to 221 BC. Cambridge University Press. [4]: (Feinman, Gary and Liye, Xie. North China Workshop 2016) |
||||||
|
Walls used earth surrounding by bricks or wood
[1]
At Zhengzhou: "The two external protective walls were similarly pounded, and the outer one was coated with a layer of protective pebbles, presumably to forestall erosion by falling rain and perhaps buttress it against floodwaters."
[2]
Walls of Zhengzhou made out of earth.
[3]
No stone used for fortification. Stone walls present in the Neolithic period
[4]
[1]: (Lovell 2006, 31) [2]: (Peers 2011, 191) [3]: (Bagley 1999, 166) Bagley, R. in Loewe, Michael. Shaughnessy, Edward L.1999. The Cambridge History of Ancient China: From the Origins of Civilization to 221 BC. Cambridge University Press. [4]: (Feinman, Gary and Liye, Xie. North China Workshop 2016) |
||||||
|
Defensive fortifications were common feature of all Warring States kingdoms, known from Qi, Wei, Zhao, and Yan in 4th c bce; likely Chu as well. Some stone, but most were built of stamped earth.
[1]
Stone walls present in the Neolithic period
[2]
[1]: (Loewe 1999a, 1021) [2]: (Feinman, Gary and Liye, Xie. North China Workshop 2016) |
||||||
|
No data yet. If not the typical Song fortification it is likely that stone fortifications existed, even if on a small/local scale.
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
"The architectural and topographic survey of Pueblito shows that the town itself seems to have no particular contours, limits, or a predetermined shape. Neither does Ciudad Perdida. There is no perimeter or defensive wall, of any shape or form, encircling it or bounding it, and clustered residential compounds were not organized into a definite form that can be interpreted as a spatial template that was being followed."
[1]
[1]: (Giraldo 2010, 274) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
"Other sites in northeast China and Inner Mongolia are connected to the Xianbei, such as sites with dwellings and burials in the Wuerjimulun River valley, east of Nanyangjianingzi, Balin Left Banner (Dien 1991, pp. 41-43; Su 1979). In A.D. 160 the Xianbei leader moved his headquarters to that of the former Xiongnu leader in the Khangai Mountains in Mongolia, although this location has not been conclusively identified. Among known sites is the walled settlement at Shengle, reportedly built in A.D. 258, just north of modern Holingol. The site was occupied by Chinese farmers under Xianbei control (Dien 1991, p. 45)."
[1]
[1]: (Rogers 2012, 223-224) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
"Evidence for warfare varies in the different areas of Europe during the Late Neolithic. In France, numerous fortified sites are found (Cassen and Boujot 1990); for example, in the Charentes and adjoining regions approximately 60 fortified sites are known (Giot 1994). Some of them such as Champ-Durand in Vendee, have a triple row of interrupted ditches with dry-stone walls and towers to protect entrances."
[1]
[1]: (Milisauskas and Kruk 2002, 259) |
||||||
|
In Mediterranean France ramparts of stone or stone/mud appear to date with the arrival of colonialists (i.e. Greeks) and were close to Massalia.
[1]
[1]: (Dietler 2010, 169) Michael Dietler. 2010. Archaeologies of Colonialism: Consumption, Entanglement, and Violence in Ancient Mediterranean France. University of California Press. Berkeley. |
||||||
|
Not mentioned in the literature.
|
||||||
|
"Rempart en pierres seches" finds within France but not close to the Paris Basin region.
[1]
[1]: (http://www.chronocarto.ens.fr/gcserver/atlas#) |
||||||
|
"Rempart en pierres seches" finds within France but not close to the Paris Basin region.
[1]
[1]: (http://www.chronocarto.ens.fr/gcserver/atlas#) |
||||||
|
"Rempart en pierres seches" finds within France but not close to the Paris Basin region.
[1]
[1]: (http://www.chronocarto.ens.fr/gcserver/atlas#) |
||||||
|
Not mentioned in the literature.
|
||||||
|
Not until the 75-27 BCE period anywhere close to the Paris Basin region, although previously present close to this same area between 560-475 BCE.
[1]
[1]: (http://www.chronocarto.ens.fr/gcserver/atlas#) |
||||||
|
Not discussed in consulted literature RA.
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Inferred absent for defensive stone walls. A stone wall has been found surrounding a funerary enclosure but this may be considered part of a building: "No large necropolis has yet been found at Sarazm, but excavation IV led to the discovery of a funerary enclosure with a round plan (15 m in diameter) surrounded by a stone wall. (see general plan of the excavation IV)."
[1]
[1]: (Sarazm Management Plan 2005, 20) |
||||||
|
"The Andronovans employed as building materials birch, pine and cedar (Siberian pine), rarely other species."
[1]
Stone was used where there were no trees.
[2]
The Liventsovka fortress near Rostov on Don "is a semicircular promontory fort, 20-24m high, enclosed by a double semi-circle of massive stone walls and surrounded by ditches, 2-6m wide and 2-3m deep."
[3]
Note: The Liventsova fortress is not Andronovan but a related culture.
[1]: (Kuz’mina 2007, 42) Elena Efimovna Kuzʹmina. 2007. The Origin of the Indo-Iranians. J P Mallory ed. BRILL. Leiden. [2]: (Kuz’mina 2007, 38) Elena Efimovna Kuzʹmina. 2007. The Origin of the Indo-Iranians. J P Mallory ed. BRILL. Leiden. [3]: (Kuz’mina 2007, 33) Elena Efimovna Kuzʹmina. 2007. The Origin of the Indo-Iranians. J P Mallory ed. BRILL. Leiden. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
About Kiuzeli-g’ir: "The first, in northern Turkmenistan, consists of long walls with rounded towers, the walls containing corridors which have been called ’living walls’ by Tolstov (Fig. 3). This complex is dated in about the 6th century BC and substantiates cultural, and thus probably also economic, contacts far to the south, as far as north-west India."
[1]
[1]: (Helms 1998, 88) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
“The Sogdian princelings bad the title of gwPw ( = xvatâv ) or gwtl(w). These rulers, whom Chinese sources claim belonged to one clan (the bouse of Chao-wu [t’siiiu-miu] = jmûk [jamûg] of the Muslim authors), were more ofte:n than not merely the first among equals in the class of dihqâns, aristocratic landholders who lived in fortified castles.2"
[1]
[1]: (Golden 1992, 189) |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
we need expert input in order to code this variable
|
||||||
|
’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 |
||||||
|
"As with the rest of the Near East, there is little evidence for warfare in Neolithic Mesopotamia."
[1]
[1]: (Hamblin 2006: 33) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/4WM3RBTD. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
No evidence to code.
|
||||||
|
Late 3rd - early 2nd millennium BCE text: "Its walls were built from stone."
[1]
Examples at Ur.
[2]
[1]: The death of Gilgameš: c.1.8.1.3. The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (ETCSL). etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk. [2]: Wooley, L. 1965. Ur Excavations. Volume III. The Kassite Period and the Period of the Assyrian Kings. London: The British Museum. |
||||||
|
Late 3rd - early 2nd millennium BCE text: "Its walls were built from stone."
[1]
Examples at Ur.
[2]
[1]: The death of Gilgameš: c.1.8.1.3. The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (ETCSL). etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk. [2]: Wooley, L. 1965. Ur Excavations. Volume III. The Kassite Period and the Period of the Assyrian Kings. London: The British Museum. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
"according to Koldewey, Achaemenid, Seleucid, and Parthian builders generally used mud mortar." Quick-setting gypsum also known from Sassanian buildings.
[1]
"Other than a few cities in Mesopotamia, Parthian cities seem not to have been surrounded by walls, although some defensive preparations, such as the aforementioned fortresses and moats, have been identified in some sites."
[2]
[1]: (Roger and Moorey 1999, 331) Roger, Peter. Moorey, Stuart. 1999. Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries: The Archaeological Evidence. Eisenbrauns. [2]: Rezakhani, Khodadad. 2016. Arsacid Society and Culture. Accessed 06.09.2016: https://iranologie.com/the-history-page/the-arsacid-empire/arsacid-society-and-culture/ |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Technology not yet available
|
||||||
|
Technology not yet available
|
||||||
|
Technology not yet available
|
||||||
|
Technology not yet available
|
||||||
|
Technology not yet available
|
||||||
|
Technology not yet available
|
||||||
|
Technology not yet available
|
||||||
|
Technology not yet available
|
||||||
|
Technology not yet available
|
||||||
|
Technology not yet available
|
||||||
|
Technology not yet available
|
||||||
|
Late 3rd - early 2nd millennium BCE Sumerian text (perhaps for the region of Mesopotamia rather than Elamite Susiana): "Its walls were built from stone."
[1]
City walls built under Indatu 11, son of Tanruhurater: “Nada podemos colegir de la situación en Elam. El rey debía ser Indatu 11,hijo de Tanruhurater, el cual conmemora en sus inscripciones, redactadas en sumerio y acadio, fundaciones piadosas y la construcción de la muralla de la acrópolis de SusaL6."
[2]
Are these walls of brick or stone - mortared or non-mortared?
[1]: The death of Gilgameš: c.1.8.1.3. The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (ETCSL). etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk. [2]: (Quintana 2007, 39) |
||||||
|
Elam in the Iron Age: stone wall technology used for burial chambers.
[1]
Late 3rd - early 2nd millennium BCE Sumerian text (perhaps for the region of Mesopotamia rather than Elamite Susiana): "Its walls were built from stone."
[2]
[1]: Javier Alvarez-Mon, ‘Elam in the Iron Age’, In Daniel T. Potts (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, 2013, p. 468 [2]: The death of Gilgameš: c.1.8.1.3. The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (ETCSL). etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk. |
||||||
|
Elam in the Iron Age: stone wall technology used for burial chambers.
[1]
Late 3rd - early 2nd millennium BCE Sumerian text (perhaps for the region of Mesopotamia rather than Elamite Susiana): "Its walls were built from stone."
[2]
[1]: Javier Alvarez-Mon, ‘Elam in the Iron Age’, In Daniel T. Potts (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, 2013, p. 468 [2]: The death of Gilgameš: c.1.8.1.3. The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (ETCSL). etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk. |
||||||
|
Elam in the Iron Age: stone wall technology used for burial chambers.
[1]
Late 3rd - early 2nd millennium BCE Sumerian text (perhaps for the region of Mesopotamia rather than Elamite Susiana): "Its walls were built from stone."
[2]
[1]: Javier Alvarez-Mon, ‘Elam in the Iron Age’, In Daniel T. Potts (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, 2013, p. 468 [2]: The death of Gilgameš: c.1.8.1.3. The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (ETCSL). etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk. |
||||||
|
Elam in the Iron Age: stone wall technology used for burial chambers.
[1]
Late 3rd - early 2nd millennium BCE Sumerian text (perhaps for the region of Mesopotamia rather than Elamite Susiana): "Its walls were built from stone."
[2]
[1]: Javier Alvarez-Mon, ‘Elam in the Iron Age’, In Daniel T. Potts (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, 2013, p. 468 [2]: The death of Gilgameš: c.1.8.1.3. The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (ETCSL). etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk. |
||||||
|
Elam in the Iron Age: stone wall technology used for burial chambers.
[1]
Late 3rd - early 2nd millennium BCE Sumerian text (perhaps for the region of Mesopotamia rather than Elamite Susiana): "Its walls were built from stone."
[2]
[1]: Javier Alvarez-Mon, ‘Elam in the Iron Age’, In Daniel T. Potts (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, 2013, p. 468 [2]: The death of Gilgameš: c.1.8.1.3. The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (ETCSL). etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk. |
||||||
|
Elam in the Iron Age: stone wall technology used for burial chambers.
[1]
Late 3rd - early 2nd millennium BCE Sumerian text (perhaps for the region of Mesopotamia rather than Elamite Susiana): "Its walls were built from stone."
[2]
[1]: Javier Alvarez-Mon, ‘Elam in the Iron Age’, In Daniel T. Potts (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, 2013, p. 468 [2]: The death of Gilgameš: c.1.8.1.3. The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (ETCSL). etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk. |
||||||
|
Elam in the Iron Age: stone wall technology used for burial chambers.
[1]
Late 3rd - early 2nd millennium BCE Sumerian text (perhaps for the region of Mesopotamia rather than Elamite Susiana): "Its walls were built from stone."
[2]
[1]: Javier Alvarez-Mon, ‘Elam in the Iron Age’, In Daniel T. Potts (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, 2013, p. 468 [2]: The death of Gilgameš: c.1.8.1.3. The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (ETCSL). etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Citadel on the ridge above Urfa had stone walls: "The Mamelukes tended to use smaller stones, while the Ak Koyunlu Uzun Hasan in his rebuilding campaign of 1462-63 imitated the original masonry."
[1]
[1]: Francis Russell. 2017. 123 Places In Turkey. A Private Grand Tour. Wilmington Square Books. London. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Not made out of stone.
|
||||||
|
Walled towns present prior to 3100 BCE. Were these mud-brick constructions not stone?
|
||||||
|
Walled towns present prior to 3100 BCE. Were these mud-brick constructions not stone?
|
||||||
|
Walled towns present prior to 3100 BCE.
|
||||||
|
Walled towns present prior to 3100 BCE.
|
||||||
|
Walled towns present prior to 3100 BCE.
|
||||||
|
[1]
[1]: (Adam 1981, 232) Adam, S. 1981. “The Importance of Nubia: A Link between Central Africa and the Mediterranean.” In General History of Africa II: Ancient Civilizations of Africa, edited by G. Mokhtar, II:226-44. General History of Africa. Paris: UNESCO. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/8APQDQV3. |
||||||
|
Tell el-Dab’a covered almost 4 KM2 at its largest extent. Citadel on western edge on the river, watchtower to the southeast over the land, around them an "enclosure wall" 6.2 meters wide (later 8.5m) and "buttressed at intervals."
[1]
Wall built at Buhen (perhaps renewal of existing fortifications) under Theban control in the third year of Kamose.
[2]
[1]: (Bourriau 2003, 180) [2]: (Bourriau 2003, 195) |
||||||
|
needs expert verification
|
||||||
|
The fact that sources mention evidence for defensive palisades
[1]
but not evidence for any other kind of fortification suggests that there is only evidence for the former. Evidence for large or complex fortifications has not been found for this period.
[1]: Flannery, K. V. and J. Marcus (2005). Excavations at San José Mogote 1: The Household Archaeology, University of Michigan Museum, p102 |
||||||
|
The fact that sources mention evidence for defensive palisades
[1]
but not evidence for any other kind of fortification suggests that there is only evidence for the former. Evidence for large or complex fortifications has not been found for this period.
[1]: Flannery, K. V. and J. Marcus (2005). Excavations at San José Mogote 1: The Household Archaeology, University of Michigan Museum, p102 |
||||||
|
Sources
[1]
do not mention any archaeological evidence for fortification for this period.
[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 defensive wall around Monte Alban was made of earth and stone.
[1]
[2]
[1]: Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. p150 [2]: Flannery, K. V. and J. Marcus (2003). "The origin of war: New C-14 dates from ancient Mexico." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100(20): 11801-11805, p11804 |
||||||
|
The defensive wall around Monte Alban was made of earth and stone.
[1]
[2]
[1]: Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. p150 [2]: Flannery, K. V. and J. Marcus (2003). "The origin of war: New C-14 dates from ancient Mexico." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100(20): 11801-11805, p11804 |
||||||
|
The defensive wall around Monte Alban was made of earth and stone.
[1]
[2]
[1]: Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. p150 [2]: Flannery, K. V. and J. Marcus (2003). "The origin of war: New C-14 dates from ancient Mexico." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100(20): 11801-11805, p11804 |
||||||
|
The defensive wall around Monte Alban was made of earth and stone.
[1]
[2]
[1]: Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. p150 [2]: Flannery, K. V. and J. Marcus (2003). "The origin of war: New C-14 dates from ancient Mexico." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100(20): 11801-11805, p11804 |
||||||
|
The defensive wall around Monte Alban was made of earth and stone.
[1]
[2]
[1]: Marcus and Flannery (1996) Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. p150 [2]: Flannery, K. V. and J. Marcus (2003). "The origin of war: New C-14 dates from ancient Mexico." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100(20): 11801-11805, p11804 |
||||||
|
Many settlements show evidence for fortifications from this period, for example: “…the rocky summit of the Yagul hill [Tlacolula region] was fortified during Period V with the same kind of dry-laid stone masonry walls used at the Mitla Fortress.”
[1]
[1]: Flannery and Marcus (1983) The Cloud People. New York. p292 |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
Lapili-breccia and limestone used in layer layers of wall building at Marib.
[1]
Photos of wall
[2]
suggest to me non-mortared but I might be wrong as they also used mud brick work which presumably had a mortar.
[1]: (Schnelle 2008, 113) Mike Schnelle. Origins of Sabaen Fortifications of the Early 1st Millennium BC - Some Suggestions to the Examples of the Cities Marib and Sirwah (Yemen). Rune Frederiksen. Mike Schnelle. Silke Muth. Peter Schneider. eds. 2016. Focus on Fortifications: New Research on Fortifications in the Ancient Mediterranean and the Near East. Oxbow Books. Oxford. [2]: (Schnelle 2008, 115-117) Mike Schnelle. Origins of Sabaen Fortifications of the Early 1st Millennium BC - Some Suggestions to the Examples of the Cities Marib and Sirwah (Yemen). Rune Frederiksen. Mike Schnelle. Silke Muth. Peter Schneider. eds. 2016. Focus on Fortifications: New Research on Fortifications in the Ancient Mediterranean and the Near East. Oxbow Books. Oxford. |
||||||
|
"These urban centres, containing temples and aristocratic dwellings, were protected by stone enclosures, which could reach 14 m in height."
[1]
[1]: (Robin 2015: 93) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/ZMFH42PE. |
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||
|
-
|
||||||