Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

: Global Perspectives on Landscapes of Warfare

2023; Archaeological Institute of America; Volume: 127; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1086/725885

1939-828X

Haggai Olshanetsky,

Marine and environmental studies

Previous articleNext article FreeBook ReviewGlobal Perspectives on Landscapes of Warfare. Edited by Hugo C. Ikehara-Tsukayama and Juan Carlos Vargas Ruiz. Louisville: University Press of Colorado 2022. Pp. 300. ISBN 978-1-64642-099-5 (hardcover) $75.Haggai OlshanetskyHaggai OlshanetskyUniversity of Basel, Switzerland Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmailPrint SectionsMoreThe war in Ukraine serves to remind us about the extent to which warfare scars the land, and this is not only a modern phenomenon. War and its consequences are not confined to the immediate outcomes of a conflict. They change the surroundings through the construction of fortifications and roads, the development of specialized industries, and the collection of materials to produce arms and varied military infrastructure. Eventually, war can further change the landscape through the displacement of populations, who create new settlements. And so, research on the symbiotic relationship between armed conflict and the surrounding landscape in all its forms is necessary and continuous. This publication brings to this vast debate 12 case studies, written by different authors and focusing on different landscapes and periods, encompassing about 8,000 years of human activity and four continents. The papers are split into cases from the Old World and from the New World.The book has no preface, so the first paper, authored by the editors, is a form of introduction. It explains and presents a methodological introduction to the concept of landscape, and particularly landscapes of conflict, with a short explanation of which papers in this volume are relevant to the different topics and subdiscussions in the theoretical field. One of the main things notable in this section, and which continues through the rest of the book, is the use of BP, years before the present, and not the more common BCE/CE or BC/AD, which may make the book less accessible to a broad audience. Furthermore, as the book deals with so many different territories, an introductory paper explaining the different dating for terms such as Bronze Age or Iron Age in different places would have been welcome. This issue and subsequent confusion with dates appears already in the second paper: on page 26, it is stated that the Bronze Age (in Eurasia) ended in 2800 BP while on page 27 (table 2.1), it is stated that it ended in 3200 BP. This paper, authored by Viktor A. Borzunov, aims to present the fortified settlements of the northern Eurasian Taiga, dated to 8000–4300 BP. It starts with a presentation of C14 dates, but it would have benefited from reexamining the dates in the newest version of the OxCal program for calibration of radiocarbon dates, OxCal 2020. The dates in this paper instead are taken from publications from the early 1990s and 2000s and are not reanalyzed. In general, this paper presents its analyses through the use of many site plans alongside maps and figures; like all of the papers in this volume, it is rich in graphics.The third paper is similar to the second in that it addresses the same region. This paper, authored by Igor V. Chechushkov, convincingly suggests that climate rather than a military vantage point was one of the main reasons behind the location of fortified sites, and the construction of the fortifications, in the southern Trans-Urals during the Bronze Age. The climate in this area is harsh, with temperatures as low as -47°C and up to 310 days of wind per year. He notes that the fortified settlements were not constructed on the high ground that would provide extra protection and visibility but rather were located in warmer places with less wind. Accordingly, he suggests that the walls were meant to block the winds, as well as to prevent the cattle from roaming, and as protection from floods. Chechushkov also highlights that the locations of sites in relation to where streams were flowing during the Bronze Age suggests the intent to protect the sites from flooding.The fourth paper turns south to the Henan Province in Central China during the Longshan archaeological culture (5000–4000 BP). In this paper, James T. Williams shows that there is absolutely no correlation between the fertility of the lands, the distance to the rivers or to other cultures, and the existence or lack of fortifications in the settlements. Each of these suggestions and assumptions was refuted by Williams through an in-depth analysis of various maps using ArcGIS. Although the paper does not present the reader with a conclusive new theory, it makes an important contribution by proving the flaws in existing theories. The fifth paper continues with East Asia but focuses on the transition between the Yayoi period to the Kofun period in Japan. Takehiko Matsugi shows that there is an increase in weapons as grave goods and a decrease in the number of fortifications and marks of violence on bodies in the Kofun. He suggests that this is partially due to less frequent periods of warfare and the change to a more individualistic society. Matsugi is the first contributor to add BC/AD dates next to the BP dates, in an admirable attempt to make the paper more understandable to the wider public. It is unfortunate, however, that in some cases there was confusion and BC was used instead of AD (103, 106, 109).The sixth paper, by Nam C. Kim and Russell S. Quick, moves farther to the south, examining the fortifications of Co Loa, the capital of the Co Loa Polity (2300–2100 BP). This now-abandoned vast city is located near the modern Vietnamese capital Hanoi. By contrast, the seventh paper takes us to the Near East and is authored by Tiffany Earley-Spadoni. It analyzes the road systems in Syria in the Middle Bronze Age, in the Neo-Assyrian empire, and in eighth-century BC Urartu. In this article, Earley-Spadoni shows that the roads in all these cases were guarded by forts that not only provided security but also were used as early warning stations and for communication, intelligence gathering, and signaling. The eighth paper takes us out of Asia and into Europe and examines Iron Age and Roman settlements in the Saint-Dié-des-Vosges basin. Here, Lizzie Scholtus examines and compares the fortified sites from both periods. At the beginning of the paper, Scholtus provides a table (161, table 8.1) that neatly lists all the relevant periods and subperiods, and presents dates in both BC/AD and BP formats, making it one of the most accessible papers in the volume.The ninth paper takes us to North America where Kerry Nichols tries to connect the increase in settlement clustering and line-of-sight contact in the Late Woodland period (1550–1100 BP) in the lower Missouri River Valley with the introduction of bows and arrows in the same period. As stated in the paper, clustering can provide greater protection in certain cases. However, the decrease in clustering in the Early Mississippian Period (1100–800 BP) weakens Nichols’ claims. The 10th paper moves once more to a different continent, this time to Pre-Hispanic South America, more accurately to the Llanos area near the Colombian Andes. The paper suggests that the fear of conflict and the need for protection may have contributed to the local clustering of settlements during the Catanga period (1000–400 BP). Yet even the author, Juan Carlos Vargas Ruiz, admits that we do not at present have enough evidence to support this claim.In the 11th paper, Hugo C. Ikehara-Tsukayama examines the change in fortifications—from numerous forts to a few large, fortified towns—in the Nepeña Valley, Peru, between 2500 and 1500 BP. Similarly, the 12th paper, by Lauren Kohut, examines the fortified sites in the Colca Valley in Peru during the Intermediate Period (1000–500 BP). The final paper, written by Elizabeth Arkush, serves as a sort of conclusion. It presents the promises and problems of implementing landscape archaeology methods in subjects that are related to warfare. This is done by explaining what each of the other papers add to the debate, what they manage to prove and why. In addition, Arkush also highlights what several papers failed to find or prove, and what were the reasons for this outcome, emphasizing the limitations of this type of investigation.All in all, this is a volume that is filled with varied and interesting papers that can greatly contribute to the field of landscape archaeology. Diverse methods and perspectives are used to examine contrasting research topics, and numerous digital tools are implemented to analyze and examine different aspects. I myself received several ideas from these papers that I hope to incorporate into my future work. This deems the volume as a good place to receive up-to-date information on the field as well as to get novel ideas. However, the book suffers from the lack of an introduction for the wider public, especially as it is a book of numerous papers with such differing periods and landscapes; its use of BP dating; and the very broad time and geographical span. Even so, this is a valuable book that should be in the libraries of any and each university, as the papers here provide unique perspectives, valuable information, and ideas relevant to many subjects that can be further expanded on.Notes[email protected] Previous articleNext article DetailsFiguresReferencesCited by American Journal of Archaeology Volume 127, Number 3July 2023 The journal of the Archaeological Institute of America Views: 193Total views on this site Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/725885 Views: 193Total views on this site HistoryPublished online June 06, 2023 Copyright © 2023 by the Archaeological Institute of AmericaPDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.