Artykuły w czasopismach na temat „Military architecture fortifications history”

The concept of "military architecture", unfortunately, has not yet been established in the domestic theory and history of architecture. Outlining a set of methodological problems associated with the formation, we consider it appropriate to propose to study several previous tasks: a) to develop a special approach to the formation of its theoretical and conceptual apparatus as a basis for the development of this area in domestic architectural science; b) to publish a dictionary of fortification architecture of Ukraine by collective efforts; c) to create a public scientific-advisory body that would perform coordination functions on the research of military architecture. This body or organization should be a liaison between ministries, state reserves, universities, state bodies for the protection of cultural heritage, and public organizations. The purpose of our publication is related to the first task. In line with the formation of the conceptual apparatus, we want to outline some key theoretical provisions on the defense architecture of the nineteenth century. According to the results of our research, we propose to conditionally divide the so-called "negative militarism" of the industrial period (ie, actually the nineteenth century and later) and "positive militarism" of the pre-industrial time. It is also proposed to expand the concept of "object of military architecture", including objects of administrative, service and other infrastructure. The results of our research indicate that the fortifications of Galicia in the mid-nineteenth century were in fact the only full expression of the movement of modernization of Venetian-Renaissance objects in Austrian military architecture. Thus, the objects of military architecture of Galicia (Lviv, Krakow, Przemyśl, Mykolayiv-Rozvadiv, Zalishchyky, etc.) occupy an exceptional position in the history of both Austrian and European architectural heritage.

Lviv is one of the cities in Ukraine that had a highly developed system of medieval fortifications. This system of fortifications was built in the XIII-XIV centuries, modernized many times and served until the 18th century. However, today in Lviv, only small remains of the medieval fortifications of the city center have been preserved in the form of architectural objects - several fragments of the defensive wall and only one defensive tower, which was rebuilt into a tower in the 16th century. These preserved objects belong to the so-called High defensive wall. These are: a fragment of the lower part of the defensive wall on 16 Svobody Avenue, a fragment of the wall and the Povoroznyk tower (connected to the building of the City Arsenal), a fragment of the wall on the Pidvalna Street (to the Royal Arsenal is attached), a fragment of the wall and the remains of the corner Rymarska tower, the remains of the foundations of the corner Shevska tower, a preserved and superimposed fragment of the wall near the Vienna coffee house (12 Svobody avenue), the remains of the wall in the basements of the building on 9 Mickiewicz Square. The rest of the remains of the High Wall are underground in the state of archaeological objects. These unique objects of military construction are not registered as architectural monuments. Also, they are not listed as monuments of archeology. Every fragment of city defense fortifications preserved today is, as a rule, a valuable document of its era and requires careful protection and preservation. Therefore, the study of the architecture of the medieval defense complex of the Lviv city center, which was created before the appearance of firearms, is important both for the history of the city and for the history and theory of domestic military architecture. This paper presents an analysis of the first stage of the construction of the High Defense Wall around the Lviv midtown and presents a hypothesis regarding its architectural solution. Special attention is paid to the issue of the planning structure of the fortified belt. The hypothesis that initially the defensive contour of the High Wall had a rounded shape has been substantiated. The argumentation about the towerless nature of the defensive belt at the first stage of the development of its fortifications is presented. There were two gates at the first stage of the construction of fortifications, which were called Tatarska and Halytska. The architectural solution of the gates was specific. The gate was formed by two towers (semicircular in plan). The gate-entrance with drawbridge was located between two high towers. At the second stage of development, the defensive High Wall was modernized, raised and a number of defensive towers were built. At the third stage, the planning scheme of the fortified belt changes. The line of the High Wall in the eastern span acquires a rectangular character with outward-projecting towers and corner towers.

The article studies the totality of military, fortification and other features of the New Zakamskaya Line as a defensive line of the South-East of European Russia. The author continued a more in-depth study of the problems of Russian field defensive architecture, which he had previously touched upon in his monograph, as well as in publications of recent years. Particular attention is paid to the analysis of aspects that were previously considered superficially or practically untouched. The fortifications and garrisons of the Novaya Zakamskaya line were chosen as the object of study. In particular, the problem of the sufficiency of the landmilitia forces for the effective protection of such extended borders was highlighted. The ways of using the space of the internal ranges of fortresses and feldshans and the fortifications that defended them to place guns and soldiers during enemy attacks are considered. Particular attention was paid to the presence of auxiliary buildings in the bastion trenches and redoubts: powder magazines, shops, guardrooms, wells, etc. For a comparative analysis of the defensive systems of the European South and South-East, conclusions and specific data obtained from the study of the lines under construction or reconstructed at the same time as the Novaya Zakamskaya, Ukrainian and Tsaritsynskaya lines were used. The historiographic basis for the study of this problem was, first of all, fundamental research on the history of fortification undertaken by F.F. Laskovsky, A.Z. Telyakovsky and a number of other military historians, including those, which were published recently. The source base for studying the proposed issues are, first of all, unpublished sources from the funds of the central archives. It is also necessary to point on materials from field surveys and archaeological excavations. The obtained results confirmed the earlier conclusion that the basic principles in the construction of a defensive line in the Trans-Volga region for the military leadership of the country in the first half of the 1730-ies were following the patterns of Western European fortification and using the land militia as the main military force to protect the border lines, as in Ukraine

Kronshtadt forts are the unique fortifications, which make it possible to visually trace the interdependence of the development of defensive structures, artillery and architecture, technology and military equipment on the more than two hundred years period on the example of naval fortress, never gave up to the enemy. Monuments are important from the point of view of science and technology history, military affairs, having the potential for moral and patriotic education, civiс and regional identity. Their uniqueness and importance for the world community is emphasized by the inclusion in the list of World Heritage of UNESCO as the component of the nomination «The historical center of St. Petersburg and related groups of monuments». However, despite the federal status of protection, cultural heritage sites are destroyed under the influence of natural and anthropogenic factors. It is important to preserve the fortifications of the Kronstadt fortress for future generations not in the form of ruins, but by adapting them to the modern use. As the objects of immovable cultural heritage constructions and places can be used to perform new functions, gaining a second life. Adaptation and museumification of fortifications have the potential of economical and sociocultural development of Kronshtadt and region. Directions and forms of adaptation to the modern use of cultural heritage objects are considered in the article.

The article reviews building techniques, used for constructing a monumental fortification of the 6th century, erected in the river-valley of Rubas, near the village of Kommuna, Derbent region of the Republic of Dagestan. The site includes six objects different in layout and construction, connected with building junctions into a single object – a construction of arched type, Wall 1, Long wall 2, Stepped structure 6, Wall 3, Platform 5. Analysis of the excavation material shows that the technology of their building was due to the functional purpose of these objects. Moreover, each of the architectural structures was built with the use of unique building techniques, variety of masonry, as well as the sizes of stone blocks and plates. The aim of the research is to conduct the analysis of the technological methods of constructing multi-type military-engineering fortifications; to determine the links of technological methods with the object’s functional purposes; to determine the level of development of construction engineering and architecture in the Peri-Caspian region in the era of the Great Migration of Peoples and the significance of this site as a military-defensive construction. The research methodology includes a detailed analysis of technological methods for the construction of military engineering structures; carrying out the classification of methods for the construction of defensive objects and the system of laying stone structures; analysis of building materials used in the construction of structures. The analysis of the excavation materials of the Rubas fortification shows that, according to the technology of construction, this object is close to the Derbent defensive complex of the middle 6th century (large stone blocks; massiveness of structures; the use of “opus quadratum” masonry; the presence of a bonding lime mortar, etc.). According to the main indicators (monumentality and functional orientation), this structure belongs to a series of barriers in the Western Peri-Caspian, built by Persia with the financial assistance of Byzantium in the era of the Great Migration of Peoples, typologically and chronologically similar to Derbent.

In the sixteenth century, chronic wars and a high concentration of towns made the Low Countries one of Europe's prime laboratories for innovations in military architecture and urbanism. The 1553 inspection tour of the region by engineers Giovanni Maria Olgiati and Sebastian van Noyen marked the assimilation of “Italian-style” fortifications into Netherlandish practice and the transition there from defenses with bastions to proper bastioned systems. Olgiati and Van Noyen's joint tour is well documented through a dozen design drawings now held at the Vatican Library, Turin's Archivio di Stato, and Madrid's Palacio Real, as well as a closely related atlas in Turin and complementary archival records. As Pieter Martens discusses in Planning Bastions: Olgiati and Van Noyen in the Low Countries in 1553, these materials, including many hitherto unknown plans, provide new insights into the design process, offer a unique panorama of the Low Countries' border defenses at this critical moment, and illuminate the genesis and spread of bastioned fortifications in Europe.

At a time when the whole of Europe is growing ever more united, the study of cultural phenomena observable all over the continent gains in importance. One such phenomenon is the occurrence of earthworks of both prehistoric and historical date. Initially associated with tribal Europe and with that period of its history when early states began to emerge, these defensive features began to decline with progressing feudalization. Within Latin Europe they were replaced by imperial ‘pfalze’, feudal seats of the motte type, and castles. Built by rulers, ecclesiastical dignitaries and knights all over the area stretching from the Atlantic Ocean to Russia, they were the most outstanding feature of the cultural landscape of medieval Europe. With the decline of the Middle Ages, changes began to affect those castles that were built on an extensive scale as well as smaller defensive features such as the keep on a mound. The picture of European defensive architecture also changed under modern cultural influences from transalpine Italy. One trend led towards ‘military architecture’ in the narrow sense of the word. Modern fortifications became the concern of specialists: engineers and practicians of the battlefield in the period termed by Michael Howard the era ‘of wars of mercenaries, merchants and professionals’ (1976). The other trend was to shape modern civilian architecture, in terms of the development unfortified palaces. The division between architectura civilis and architectura militaris became a fact.

Since Charles de Tolnay first published them in 1940, Michelangelo's drawings for the fortifications of Florence have stimulated considerable scholarly interest. Tolnay likened the zoomorphic shapes of Michelangelo's sketches to crustaceous creatures. The analogy has become a commonplace, and while helping to describe the formal appearance of these unexpected designs, it has led most scholars to question their purpose and practicality. Furthermore, every scholar has followed Tolnay's general view that the series proceeds from the simple to the complex, with the drawings becoming increasingly abstract and fantastic. This paper proposes that Michelangelo's process of design was exactly the opposite. Beginning with abstract and complex ideas, Michelangelo proceeded to develop and refine his conceptions in a series of drawings that reflect a rational process of design. This hypothesis is more in accord with the historical facts and the documentary evidence and is based on a close analysis of the drawings themselves. The 20 sheets preserved in the Casa Buonarroti are evidence of Michelangelo's practical concern with particular problems of Florence's defense in 1528-1529 and represent the first stage of his successful activity as a military engineer for the Republic.

The role of Francesco di Giorgio (1439-1501) in developing the forms of artillery fortification marking the transition from late medieval defenses to the mature bastioned forts of the 16th century is becoming clearer as additional research has enhanced our knowledge of the chronology of his interventions, the maturation of design elements, and the interlocking personal, institutional, and political factors in his work for the Aragonese Kingdom of Naples. These efforts by Francesco di Giorgio and his associates focused on Naples, Otranto, Gallipoli, Taranto, Manfredonia, Monte Sant'Angelo, Reggio Calabria, Ortona, Matera, and Brindisi. Archival sources, investigation of the sites, and surviving graphic materials contribute substantially to identifying this "school" of military architects and the evolution of design brought about by the technological challenge of gunpowder, firearms, and siege artillery.

Archaeologists of Sverdlovsk-Yekaterinburg and Tomsk in the taiga of the Surgut and Lower Ob’ River regions examined six burial objects of the 1st—4th centuries BC of Kulayka cultural and historical community with a large number of imported and local inventory. These include the graves of people located in different territories (a child, adults), the burial of ittarmadolls, which were posthumous dummies of warriors who died in a foreign land, as well as a hoard with metal regalia of the shaman’s vestments. This indicates the beginning of an active social-economic stratification in the society of the Ob’Ugrians and formation of the administrative, military, property and spiritual elite in it. The main reason for this was not the development of the producing economy, which was practically not present among the fishermen-hunters in the western regions of the taiga Ob’ region, but rather the integration of the north of Western Siberia in the system of the common Eurasian economy as a permanent supplier of furs, especially since the evolution of the northern (“fur”) branches of the Great Silk Road in the 1st century BC. At the same time, the first signs of social differentiation and the separation of the military class were traced here as early as the second half of the 1 st millennium BC. This is confirmed by the finds of bronze and iron weapons of the steppe (Scythian-Sarmatian) and taiga (Kulaika) forms at forest sanctuaries, the first single copper-bronze anthropomorphous images in helmets and “sun crowns”, as well as the proliferation of miniature fortresses with powerful bastion-tower fortifications, likely places of residence of the Ugric elite. The architecture of such “towns” was borrowed from the forest-steppe tribes of the Tobol-Irtysh River region, and those from the Saka of the Aral Sea region.

AbstractThe most outstanding oasis fort of the limes Tripolitanus, Myd(---)/Gheriat el-Garbia, saw the deployment of various military units between AD 198/201 and 275/80. Archaeological research in 2009/10 focussed on the fortifications, particularly the main and rear gates, the northern angle tower and interval towers 2 and 4 as well as the curtain wall at its south corner. The towers of the porta praetoria have been reconstructed theoretically with three storeys, at an overall height of c. 12.5 m. Of the headquarters building two of the rear rooms, including the shrine, were excavated. A monumental inscription of a length of c. 9.0 m and corresponding architectural elements suggest the existence of a groma building. Completely unexpected by archaeologists as well as ancient historians and rather spectacular is a late Roman reoccupation of the military site: after a hiatus of c. 80+ years building activities were undertaken within the fort and repairs and the blocking of the main gate could be observed and probably attributed to the deployment of a unit of limitanei between AD 360/80 (at the earliest) and 430/55. The reoccupied fort might be identified with the so far unknown castra Madensia, where the milites munifices were garrisoned (Notitia Dignitatum Occ. 31, 30). Further evidence of occupation, possibly of a Libyan chieftain and his tribe, has been assigned to the second half of the fifth century, continuing thereafter until AD 540+.

The article analyzes the plan of the city of Lviv by Jean Doetsch from 1770 - one of the first cartographic sources to the history of the city. The significance of the plan for the scientific reconstruction of the state of the architectural and town-planning structures of the city for the second half of the 18th century is revealed. The hypothesis that the map was made for educational and military purposes is substantiated. This is evidenced by a careful fixation of the fortification structure of the city center, indicating the number of lines of defensive walls, fossas, gates, other elements. Many objects depicted on the plan were lost at a later time, so their identification, analysis of the planning structure are important to preserve information about them. Brief characteristics are given for such objects. The peculiarity of Doetsch's map is that the plan of the High Castle which is presented twice on the sheet. The image of the inventory plan of the ruins of the High Castle is placed in a separate vignette in the lower left corner of the map. This image is a unique material that accurately conveys the nature of the fortifications of the complex and indicates its real state in the second half of the XVIII century. This plan of the castle made in a more detailed scale than the map. Another image of the High Castle, painted directly "in situ" on the mountain, does not show the correct configuration and planimetric structure of the object. We consider this image as a project of modernization of the castle fortifications, which was crossed out from an unknown source. Such special attention to the High Castle, a medieval defensive object, also, in our opinion, demonstrates the didactic purposes of compiling the map. The map as a whole accurately conveys the urban structure of Lviv in the second half of the eighteenth century and is a very valuable source for studying its history and architecture. Also valuable is the information with the list of the main objects of Lviv included in the vignette-explication of “Nomina Locorum” to the map, although there are some mistakes regarding the name and numbering of individual objects. The plans of a number of objects of Lviv from that time - St. George's Cathedral, St. John's Church near the High Castle, the Jesuit Garden, Armenian monasteries in the Krakow suburbs, some palace complexes that no longer exist today have a particular value. The question remains why Doetsch's plan does not depict two defensive bastion lines built around the Krakow and Halych suburbs in the 17th century: the so-called F. Getkant's line (from the 1630s) and Jan Berentz's defensive belt (from the 1670s). At the time of compiling the map, they still existed and were the dominant defense complexes in the panorama and landscape of the city. As a separate study, the analysis and identification of the location of the palace of the royal mayor A. Moszinsky on the basis of J. Doetsch's map was performed. We consider this a good example of using the informative potential of the map.

The article explores ways in which the nineteenth-century Prussian military architecture has been used and promoted as a part of the local heritage in the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad. Accommodation of the old fortification buildings to tourism and museum work has been publicly discussed since the beginning of the 2000s, but neither local nor federal authorities have proposed a plan to adapt them to non-military purposes. As a result, these structures, which are protected by federal heritage laws and uniformly built of characteristic red bricks, have become an arena for various initiatives, experiments, and games with the past. Strategies of virtualization discussed in the paper reveal a lack of open public discussion about dark episodes of Russian and Soviet history. Consequently, it is important to learn more about how and why contemporary Kaliningraders appropriate the local German legacies, use globally accepted strategies of heritage construction, and develop cooperation with the EU countries, while remaining receptive to official historical narratives promulgated by the national center.

Las ciudades mesopotámicas estaban amuralladas desde sus orígenes. Muralla y ciudad, símbolo de civilización, eran dos conceptos inseparables. Por mandato de los dioses, el rey era el responsable de la fundación de las ciudades y de la construcción de sus sistemas de defensa, que fueron evolucionando como respuesta a los cambios producidos en el arte de la guerra en el Próximo Oriente antiguo. En este artículo se analiza, en particular, la documentación arqueológica y textual de dos modelos de ciudad fortificada: Mari (III-II milenio a. C.), en el norte, y Babilonia (II-I milenio a. C.), en el sur. Se realiza una nueva propuesta de interpretación del recinto defensivo interior de Babilonia. Palabras clave: Ciudades mesopotámicas, fortificacionesTopónimos: Habuba Kabira, Mari, BabiloniaPeríodo: IV-I milenio a. C. ABSTRACTMesopotamian cities were walled from their origins. Wall and city, a symbol of civilisation, were two inseparable concepts. By mandate of the gods, the king was responsible for the foundation of the cities and the construction of their defence systems, which evolved in response to changes in the art of warfare in the ancient Near East. This article analyses, in particular, the archaeological and textual documentation of two models of fortified cities: Mari (3rd-2nd millennium B.C.), in the north, and Babylon (2nd-1st millennium B.C.), in the south. A new approach to the interpretation of the inner wall of Babylon is proposed. Keywords: Mesopotamian cities, fortificationsPlace names: Habuba Kabira, Mari, BabylonPeriod: IVth-Ist millennium B. C. REFERENCIASAbrahami, Ph. (1997), L’armée à Mari, tesis doctoral, Université de Paris I (inédita).al-Rawi, F.N.H. (1985), “Nabopolassar’s Restoration Work on the Wall Imgur-Enlil at Babylon”, Iraq, 47, pp. 1-9.Aurenche, O. (dir.) (1977), Dictionnaire illustré multilingue de l’architecture du Proche Orient Ancien, Lyon, MOM.Azara, P. (dir.) (2000), La fundación de la ciudad. Mesopotamia, Grecia y Roma, Barcelona, CCCB.Battini, L. (1996), “Un exemple de propagande néoassyrienne: les défenses de Dur-Sharrukin”, CMAO, 6, pp. 215-234.— (1997), “Les sytèmes défensifs à Babylone”, Akkadica, 104-105, pp. 24-55.Becker, H., van Ess, M., Fassbinder, J. (2019), “Uruk: Urban Structures in Magnetic and Satellite Images”, en Uruk. First City of the Ancient World, Los Angeles, Getty Museum.Burke, A. A. (2008), “Walled up to Heaven”. The Evolution of Middle Bronze Age Fortifications Strategies in the Levant, Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns.Butterlin, P. (2016), “Villes de Mésopotamie, D’Uruk à Babylone”, en L’histoire commence en Mésopotamie, París, Louvre, pp. 166-171.— (2020), “Mari, une ville circulaire ordinaire?”, en Circular Cities of Early Bronze Age Syria, Turnhout, Breplos, pp. 265-273.Chavalas, M. (ed.) (2006), Historical Sources in Translation. The Ancient Near East, Malden, Blackwell.Childe, V. G. (1992), Los orígenes de la civilización, México DF, FCE (1ª edición de 1936).Collon, D. (2008), “Le développement de l’arc en Mésopotamie”, en Les armées du Proche-Orient ancien (IIIe et Ier mil. av. J.-C.), Oxford, BAR.Durand, J. M. (1997), Les documents épistolaires du palais de Mari, tome I, Paris, Éditions du Cerf.— (1998), Les documents épistolaires du palais de Mari, tome II, Paris, Éditions du Cerf.George, A. R. (1992), Babylonian Topographical Texts, Leuven, Peeters.Herzog, Z. (1997), “Fortifications”, en The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, New York-Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 319-326.Hnaihen, K. H. (2020), The Defensive Brick Architecture in Mesopotamia from the end of Early Bronze Age to th end of Early Iron Age, tesis doctoral, Universidad de Almería (inédita).Houben, H. y Guillaud, H. (2006), Traité de construction en terre, Marseille, Éditions Parenthèses.Kenyon, K. M. (1963), Arqueología en Tierra Santa, Barcelona, Ediciones Garriga.Lackenbacher, S. (2001), “Fondations assyriennes”, en Mites de fundació de ciutats al món antic (Mesopotàmia, Grècia i Roma), Barcelona, MAC, pp. 69-74.Liverani, M. (2006), Uruk. La primera ciudad, Barcelona, Edicions Bellaterra.— (2014), Imaginar Babel. Dos siglos de estudios sobre la ciudad oriental antigua, Barcelona, Edicions Bellaterra.Ludwig (1980), “Mass, Sitte und Technik des Bauens in Habuba-Kabira Süd”, en Le Moyen Euphrate, zone de contactes et d’échanges, Leyden, Brill, pp. 63-74.Margueron, J. C. (2000), “Nacimiento y fundación de ciudades en Mesopotamia”, en La fundación de la ciudad. Mesopotamia, Grecia y Roma, Barcelona, CCCB, pp. 33-48.— (2004), Mari. Métropole de l’Euphrate au IIIe et au Début du IIe millénaire av. J.-C., Paris, Picard-ERC.— (2009), “La fondation de Mari. Première aproche d’une technologie de fondation”, Estudos Orientais, 10, pp. 13-33.— (2011), “Aux origines de l’architecture militaire en Mésopotamie”, en Stratégies de défense, de conquête ou de victoire en Méditerranée des textes aux architectures et à l’aménagement, Tlemcen, pp. 11-45.— (2012), “Du village à la ville: continuité ou rupture?”, en Du village néolithique à la ville syro-mésopotamienne, Ferrol, PAMES-UDC, pp. 67-97.— (2013), Cités invisibles. La naissance de l’urbanisme au Proche-Orient ancien, París, Paul Geuthner— (2014), Mari. Capital of Northern Mesopotamia in the Third Millennium, Oxford-Philadelphia, Oxbow Books.Mazar, A. (1995), “The Fortification of Cities in the Ancient Near East”, en Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, volumes III-IV, Peabody, Hendrickson Publishers, pp. 1523-1537.Mielke, D. P. (2012), “Fortifications and Fortification Strategies of Mega-Cities in the Ancient Near East”, en Mega-cities Mega-sites, the Archaeology of Consumption Disposal, Landscape, Transport Communication, 7th ICAANE vol. 1, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz Verlag, pp. 74-91.Montero Fenollós, J. L. (2004), “Revisando a Gordon Childe, el concepto de Revolución Metalúrgica en los albores de la historia de Mesopotamia”, en Miscelánea en homenaje a Emiliano Aguirre, Alcalá de Henares, Museo Arqueológico Regional, pp. 312-319.— (2017), “Bronze Metallurgy in the Times of Earliest Cities. New Data on the City I of Mari”, Ash-Sharq, 1, pp. 48-54.— (2019), “La frontera noroccidental del reino de Mari a comienzos del II milenio a. C. a la luz de los textos y la arqueología. Reflexiones sobre la localización de Dur-Yahdun-Lim”, Claroscuro, 18, pp. 1-21.Nadali, D. (2007), “Ashurbanipal against Elam. Figurative Patterns and Architectural Location of Elamite Wars”, Historiae, 4, pp. 57-91Nigro, L. (2015), “Tell es-Sultan 2015. A Pilot Project for Archaeology in Palestine”, Near Eastern Archaeology, 79, pp. 4-17.Pedersén, O. (2011), “Excavated and Unexcavated Libraries un Babylon”, en Babylon. Wissenskultur in Orient und Okzident, Berlin-Boston, De Gruyter, pp. 47-67.— (2021), Babylon. The Great City, Münster, Zaphon.Reade J. E. (2008), “Early Travellers on the Wonders: Suggested Sites”, en Babylon: Myth and Reality, London, British Museum, pp, 112-118.Rey, S. (2012), Poliorcétique au Proche-Orient à l’âge du Bronze. Fortifications urbaines, procédés de siège et systèmes défensifs, Beyrouth, IFPO.Sanmartín, J. (2018), Gilgamesh, rey de Uruk, Madrid, Trotta.Sasson, J.M. (1969), The Military Establishments at Mari, Roma, Pontifical Biblical Institute.Sollberger, E., Kupper, J. R. (1971), Inscriptions royales sumériennes et akkadiennes, Paris, Éditions du Cerf.Thomas, A. (dir.) (2016), L’histoire commence en Mésopotamie, París, Louvre.Van Ess, M. (2008), “Koldewey, Pionier systematicher Ausgrabungen im Orient”, en Auf dem weg nach Babylon. Robert Koldewey. Ein Archäologenleben, Mainz, Verlag Philipp von Zabern, pp. 91-103.Vidal, J. (2012), “La guerra de asedio en el período paleobabilónico según los textos de Mari”, en Fortificaciones y guerra de asedio en el mundo antiguo, Zaragoza, Libros Pórtico, pp. 21-35.Wetzel, F. (1969), Stadtmauer von Babylon, Osnabrück, Otto Zellen.Yadin, Y. (1963), The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands, 2 vols., New York-Toronto-Londres, McGraw-Hill Book Company.

The study of castles has formed a major part of crusade historiography since its inception in the early nineteenth century. Fortification has been taken to represent the magnificence of the efforts to rule the Holy Land and the battle between Christianity and Islam. Recently, however, scholars have recognised that, inasmuch as castles were celebrated as the epitomes of resilience and hostility, military architecture was far more dialogical than previously noticed. The design of castles involved a highly nuanced familiarity with the culture from which they were intended to defend. This article seeks to show that not only the physical characteristics of castles but also ideas about what made them religiously successful, in their capacity to enact and protect ritual spaces, were shaped through a dynamic inter-religious dialogue. Taking Safed as a case study, this article brings together three narratives—in Latin, Arabic and Hebrew—that share the attempt to laud the castle by drawing a dialectic between its strategic might and the sanctity of the soil upon which it is built. While the three accounts differ radically in their political stakes, the rhetorical strategies they employ in order to contemplate the spiritual efficacy of the castle is profoundly entangled.

The main aim of this paper is to briefly present the history of the restoration of the Theodosian Walls in Constantinople and their green surroundings, with a focus on the different factors that have affected this process. The Theodosian Walls, now in Istanbul, were one of the most perfect works of military architecture for hundreds of years, contributing to the survival of the city in the face of repeated attacks, as well as surviving numerous earthquakes. Their design was characterized by a number of military solutions that were innovative at the time. However, due to damage caused by natural disasters, and as a result of war and the expansion of the city, many restoration works have been undertaken during their existence. The biggest changes were made during the expansion of roads in the twentieth century, as well as during restoration works carried out after 1991. These restoration works included the protection and partial reconstruction of the fortification’s original appearance. Today, a question remains regarding how to restore such an important monument in current cultural conditions while taking into consideration the importance of green areas in the city. The main conclusion of this research is that both the walls and bostans, as inseparable parts of tangible heritage, could significantly support cultural tourism following their complex restoration and full inclusion into the educational system in Turkey

The article opens a series of thematic publications, which should outline the current state of preservation and destruction of historically important objects of cultural heritage - fortifications. Based on field studies of fortresses and available digital materials, the author derives a cause-and-effect algorithm for the destruction of 11 selected research objects. The description of the state of preservation includes a general description of the territory and objects of fortification, the identified losses. The article opens a cycle of thematic publications, which should outline the current state of preservation and destruction of historically important objects of cultural heritage - fortifications. On the basis of field studies of fortresses and available digital materials, the author derived a cause-and-effect algorithm for the destruction of 11 selected research objects. The description of the state of preservation includes a general description of the territory and objects of fortification, discovered losses. Annual monitoring of the state of preservation of fortifications is not a component of the reports of local and regional departments for the protection of monuments of immovable cultural heritage of Ukraine, the territory and objects of which are subordinate to the state. Brief information is found in the annual reports of archaeological expeditions, which describe the available remains of material substrates and found items of cultural layers (Collection, 1947-2022). In tourist and excursion reviews, which appear as author's articles and video tours (Butrov, 2021), we are often told which objects we can visit, brief popular information and historical figures. The authors do not deepen their publicly available reviews to the level of cause-and-effect relationships of the destruction, being guided by the general impression of visiting the sites of monuments of fortification art. Since the middle of the 20th century, interest in the fortresses of southern Ukraine (modern Odesa, Mykolaiv, and Kherson regions) has been traced in the publications of individual researchers of the Odessa Society of History and Antiquities ((Ivanyuk, 2011). Their works aim to specify, clarify historical events, deepen knowledge in fortification order the territory, introduce new historiographical sources into scientific circulation (Bertier-Delagarde, 1900) (Bertier-Delagarde, 1888) (Stamati, 1850). Only a limited number of researchers record the current state of fortresses, in particular, when creating security documentation or historical-architectural reference plans. The most relevant today are the descriptions of the terrain of the fortresses by historians and archaeologists Viktor Sapozhnikov, Andrii Krasnozhon, Iryna Stankevich (Karashevych), Oleksandr Stepanchenko, architect Viktor Vecherskyi. Currently, there are almost no detailed descriptions and studies of the material component of the architectural details of the buildings and the territory of the monuments, which mostly limits the introduction and use of modern materials during restoration and restoration. The method of work consists in a field survey, carried out under the condition of the possibility of architectural measurements and a mathematical calculation of the volume of losses of objects over the last hundred years. The starting model of the calculation is a three-dimensional model of the researched fortress created on the basis of archival drawings and images, which in general spatial parameters corresponds to the architectural dimensions. Part of the fortresses, in particular Ochakiv, Kinbourn and Kiliya, are currently completely lost objects, it is impossible to carry out architectural measurements of the remains, therefore three-dimensional models of fortress reconstructions are used in relative volumes, not actual ones. Two main groups of destruction factors were identified: anthropogenic and natural. Anthropogenic include: 1.1. Violation of the boundaries of the monument. which are defined in the IAOP, unauthorized or system land development; 1.2. Extraction of land, sand and arrangement of landfills for household waste. Mechanical destruction of earth lines of fortifications; 1.3. Use of landmark stones as building material by local residents; 1.4. Unregistered archaeological searches - black archaeologists; 1.5. General vandalism; 1.6. Fortification measures were carried out in an unprofessional manner; 1.7. Military operations. Currently, there is an important issue of entering the territories of fortification objects - fortresses, castles, fort posts - objects of fortification art of the south of Ukraine into the list of historical monuments of local importance, because in this way it is possible to achieve their rightful protection and conservation. Entering areas into protected zones, assigning a protected number and recognizing historical value becomes the reason for bringing the local population to criminal responsibility in case of conscious and unconscious destruction, littering, conducting illegal economic activities. The minimization of anthropogenic impact on the territory and the surviving material remains of objects of fortification art should become the basis for the implementation of monument protection measures. Natural factors include: 2.1. Weathering of earth and stone, falling of bricks or collapse of wall fragments; 2.2. Irrigation and wetting of the grounds of the attraction; 2.3. Brick wetting and biodamage The influence of climatic factors is almost impossible to stop, because they do not depend on the activities of the local population, and to minimize them - yes. Each project of monument protection measures or conservation project must include measures for amortization of climatic changes, take into account forecasts and calculation of possible risks of using materials and technical equipment on the territory of monuments of fortification art. Modern materials and mixtures of polymeric substances can protect limestone surfaces from intense insolation and erosion. Monitoring of the state of preservation should go from visual and quantitative (use of photo reports and measurements, installation of dynamic beacons) to digital - use soundings and calendar checks of the molecular composition of stone and plaster to check and clarify the factors of destruction, develop a program for mitigating climate impacts. Carrying out drainage works, draining or watering the necessary areas to ensure the equalization of microclimatic indicators, to prevent landslides or wind erosion. The study of microdendrology and stone biodamage of fortresses in southern Ukraine is rather limited or inaccessible to specialists in architecture and monument preservation. Currently, it is not known which algae, mosses and plants deteriorate the structure of the stone or contribute to its preservation. Exudation on the surface and inside the stone or brick manifests itself differently in different regions. Only the next molecular studies of the materials from which the monuments were built will provide a greater range of possibilities in the use of ancient fortification technologies or the introduction and invention of new restoration materials. The most dangerous are the illegal economic activities of the local population, the absence of warning signs, lack of information about fines and criminal liability, and monitoring of violations should be on the eve of significant restoration works. The community that will use the monument must be aware of the challenges and risks caused by careless treatment of the object of protection, in this case a monument of fortification art. Conducting joint seminars and training camps for children and teenagers with scientists will expand their awareness of the value of fortresses and adjacent territories, and will avoid vandalism and systematic littering of the territory based on the principle of "common open use". In the future, the wishes and demands of the community can be taken into account in the project of restoration and adaptation of monuments to the modern needs and functions of the community itself, thus we will get rid of the physical and cultural isolation of the monument and the user. In general, the fortification areas are filled unevenly, there is fragmentary preservation of individual structures or territories of the defensive field. The complete preservation of the fortification environment, in which all the constituent parts were present, was not found. The Akkerman fortress (47.5%) is classified as an incomplete integral state of preservation, and the Kherson, Izmail, and Perekop fortresses are classified as average (40%). These fortresses include the outer lines of defense lines, walls, gates and planning parcelling, fragments of the defensive field, and fortification inspection fronts. These fortresses are well located within the city center and are a popular place for recreation and public events. They require regulation of visiting regimes, discovery and emphasis of architectural and spatial qualities, improvement of the quality of exposition of the historical landscape. The Perekop Fortress requires separate preservation and exhibition measures, the development of which is currently problematic. The fragmentarily preserved fortresses (Kinburn and Kiliya) do not have significant spatial elements of fortification, are lost and built over, but their historical and cultural significance for modern Ukraine is important, the reproduction or exhibition of these objects is of state importance. Unfortunately, the lost fortresses (Tatar-Bunar, Yeni-Duniya, Ochakiv, Kuchuk Hasan Pasha, Khadzhibey) do not have resources for architectural or landscape reproduction, their territory is completely built-up and degraded, they are in the state of an archaeological monument. Risks of further loss of historical-architectural and spatial qualities were identified for all the examined fortresses. The integrity of the historical landscapes of fortresses directly depends on the economic activity of local residents. Due to agriculture, the Ajider fortress may lose part of the defensive moat and be built up by private sector economic structures. Active clogging of fortress grounds leads to loss of interest in visiting, general aesthetic properties of panoramas. The littering and remoteness of the earthen lines of Izmail's fortifications, bordering with the fences of industrial territories creates a depressing impression, a sense of danger. Also, active earthworks can destroy the geometry of the profile of the earthen bastions of the fortress. The lost fortresses (Tatar-Bunar, Yeni-Duniya, Ochakiv, Kuchuk Hasan Pasha, Hadjibey, Kiliya, Kinburn) were subjected to a complex of destructive factors for a long time. The Yeni-Duniya fortress, which was dismantled for the purpose of building a new fort post and setting up a gun bridgehead, was completely destroyed in one moment. The Hadjibey fortress was destroyed in order to arrange a park and a recreation and festival area. The territory of the Kuchuk Hasan Pasha fort was rebuilt recently, so it is impossible to determine the extent and factors of the structure's destruction, stating only that it was a deliberate reconstruction. Tatar-bunar fortress, one of the examples of gradual natural and anthropogenic destruction, part of its bricks were used for construction of surrounding buildings, the rest – has undergone natural erosion. It is known that some of the large white brick blocks of Fort Kinbourn were used by the locals as building material, and then the estuary and the wind completely buried any remains of the mighty fortress in the sand.

With the advance of the Ottoman Empire the Archiepiscopate of Esztergom was forced to leave its seat and move to Nagyszombat. The buildings of mediaeval origin on Castle Hill, first housing royalties and later the archbishop, were appropriated by the military forces and suffered considerable damage from sieges and the Ottoman domination. The rule of the Turks ceased in Esztergom in 1683, but the archbishopric did not return before 1820. Nonetheless, the archbishops of the 18th century were also preoccupied with the fate and future of the buildings on Castle Hill.Archbishop Ferenc Barkóczy (1761–1765, fig. 4) commissioned the Vienna-based architect of French origin, Isidore Ganneval (1730–1786) to plan a centre of ecclesiastical management on Castle Hill. Unfortunately, it is hard to glean from the fragmentary archival sources what exactly Ganneval was asked to design. His extant survey drawings are only about the renaissance Bakócz chapel which survived the vicissitudes of the centuries relatively intact. Ganneval’s fairly modest fee and his stay of a few months only permit the assumption that he was contracted only to draw up a sketchy proposal. The wooden model (fig. 5) only known from a photograph and possibly perished by now, which can hardly be fitted among the subsequent plan variants, might as well reflect the ideas inspired by his planning work in Esztergom. The conception documented by the wooden mock-up does not take into account the existing, mostly ramshackle buildings and fortifications. The “Navis Ecclesiae” idea represented by the model shows the cathedral flanked by wings of the archiepiscopal palace, the buildings of the theological college are situated lower, and the main road to Visegrád is lined by the canons’ houses. The sanctuary of the cathedral faces west breaking with the tradition of the eastern apse. The groundplan is a fusion of centralized and longitudinal plans, its basic element is the Bakócz Chapel (fig. 6) the mass of which is reiterated and enlarged in it.This proposal ignored the possibility of preserving the mostly mediaeval buildings and fortifications on Castle Hill. In December 1761, however, Archbishop Barkóczy was compelled to sign the obligation by the War Council to undertake the maintenance of the Castle Hill fortifications and in case of enemy attacks to accommodate imperial troops there. It was only through the intervention of the Queen, Maria Theresa, that Barkóczy could be exempted from this obligation in 1763.The next plan of a church administration centre was elaborated by Franz Anton Hillebrandt (1719–1797) whose first plan series was made during the validity of the military obligation from December 1761 to March 1763. It is quite possible that the style of the architect of the Hungarian royal chamber was closer to the taste of the baroque art patron Barkóczy than that of Canneval twenty years his junior, representing the progressivity of revolutionary architecture. The latter was also commissioned by Anton Christoph Migazzi to design the cathedral of Vác, whose style did not attract followers in Hungary.Apart from the principal plan known in the copy by Anton Hartmann (fig. 7) only four pieces of the first plan series survive, including the first floor plan of the seminary building (fig. 8). This baroque conception keeps the fortified walls and bastions around Castle Hill but demolishes the military buildings on the plateau (barracks, hospital, stalls, etc.). It is like an architectural counter-proposal to Ganneval’s wooden model, taking into greater consideration the relief features than the perfunctory mock-up. Hillebrandt delivered these plans to Archbishop Barkóczy on 10 March 1763 and forwarded the queen’s message at the same time: the financial obligation to maintain the military defences of Castle Hill had been abrogated. It immediately invalidated the plans just presented, and obstacles from the path of planning were removed. That was probably the stimulus behind the free-handed amateur linear drawing of a groundplan made perhaps by the archbishop or his representative for the architect in 1763 (fig. 9) in which the functions of the buildings are defined. In a sense it returns to Ganneval’s model which handled Castle Hill without any restrictions.Only few – a mere six sheets – of Hillebrandt’s plans are known from after the sketch. (A part of the plans were probably taken by architect István Möller to Budapest in the first decades of the 20th century and possibly perished during the siege of the capital in 1945 or during the reconstruction.) Anyway, it must have been on the basis of this second series of plans that the demolition of mediaeval remains, soil levelling and the laying of foundations began in 1763. In 1764, the collapse of an Ottoman minaret built using a mediaeval stair-tower caused the crushing of Porta Speciosa, the main portal of the mediaeval St Adalbert cathedral. Mainly preparatory construction went on until the death of Archbishop Barkóczy in 1765. That interrupted the building of a baroque church administration centre for good.Building commissioner János Máthes (1785–1848) summed up in his work published in 1827 how far the construction had arrived and what was built later. Maria Theresa requested Hillebrandt to plan a church dedicated to King Saint Stephen for the garrison reinstated on Castle Hill, which was constructed in 1767–1770. It was – on a smaller scale – on the site of the planned baroque cathedral, certainly not using its foundation walls. About the situation a layout drawing (fig. 12), groundplan and design plan (fig. 13) are included in Máthes’s book. In addition, a now latent or extinct, mock-up (fig. 14) made by Máthes also reflects the situation on Castle Hill in the last quarter of the 18th century. In the lower part of the model made in the early 1820s groundplans of the buildings on Castle Hill could be seen (fig. 16). One of the specialties of the church was the copy of the Hungarian royal crown placed on the spire as the crowning ornament. On the façade on top of the stairs adjacent to the broad ramp leading to the basilica of today the statues of Saints Stephen and Ladislaus carved by the Pest sculptor József Hebenstreit were erected. Surviving items include side altar pictures painted by Anton Karl Rosier of Pozsony which are today in the Esztergom church of the Sisters of Mercy of Szatmár. The later rebuilt garrison church was pulled down in 1821 to make room for today’s cathedral. One of the first moves of the new construction was the transfer of the Bakócz Chapel to its present place. The cathedral, the construction of which started on plans by Pál Kühnel (1765–1824) and János Packh (1796–1839) fitted into a conception of a church government centre the model for which might have been provided by Ganneval’s plan of nearly sixty years before.

The Trinitat Fort, built in the mid-16th century, is an extraordinary example of European military architecture from the mid-16th century, conceived as an artillery machine, whose mission was to protect the natural port of Roses (Girona, Spain). The fortification had a long history of warfare that ended with the Peninsular War (1808–1814), which turned it into ruins. In 2002, the Roses city council planned an ambitious architectural intervention to recover the fortification. The works restored the overall exterior volumetry, with current construction materials. The large interior spaces resulting from the intervention had little in common with the original structures. Starting in 2016, the museum projected to open the fort to the public. The strategy focused on 3D works, which were used to plan museographic proposals and to make an interior space understandable, with an aspect very distant from that of the original construction. It entailed extensive fieldwork analyzing the sources and structural remains that were preserved and surmising the possible architectural solutions the fortress originally contained. Based on evidence and hypotheses, the group carried out a reconstruction from virtual archeology, and it developed a didactic iconography to explain the artifact to a broad spectrum of visitors and students. This iconography was applied on the panels, in the scenography and audiovisuals of the museum, and in the dissemination materials. The museography was implemented between 2019 and 2021. Considering the variables and comprehensive needs for a wide range of users and visitors, we completed the virtual archeology proposal based on realistic criteria, giving importance in 3D to textures and colors. It incorporated the anthropic and movable factors through matte painting techniques and images obtained with the support of re-enactment groups.Highlights: - The Fort of the Trinitat, built in the middle of the 16th century, is an extraordinary poliorcetic piece, conceived as an artillery machine, whose mission was to protect the natural port of Roses (Girona, Spain). - Between 2019 and 2021, an ambitious reconstruction of virtual archaeology has been carried out, developing a didactic iconography aimed at broad-spectrum visitors and formal education students. - The didactic iconography proposal developed in the Fort of the Trinitat does not try to compete with the large market productions, but it does try to explore sustainable intervention models to make the past and its heritage known.

In this study, we analyzed the methods and technologies used for constructing earthworks and military engineering in the latter period before the industrial revolution in Poland. The research object, the Warsaw Citadel, is a source of knowledge about military heritage from the aspect of conservation and protection of specific engineering achievements, which were dictated by early Russian geopolitical doctrine. Within the framework of the ongoing project of material heritage protection and popularization of history, the fortress has been transformed into a modern museum building. The new symbolic message of architecture was redefined, leaving behind the gloomy dominance elements in the scenery of the nearby city. In this study, reception tests of ground anchors were used for analysis. They were treated as a tool to determine the heterogeneity of fortification of historical earthworks. In the presented calculation procedure, limitations in the availability of geotechnical tests were overcome. Geological terrain layout and embankment excavation technology significantly impacted their quality and reliability. Currently, the embankments are slashed with anchored retaining walls. Ground anchors were used at short distances and were tested according to the national standard procedures. The results of the load tests are based on the physical properties of the subsoil, the conditions of contact with the supporting elements of the anchors, and the material properties. The soil interaction with the anchors is described using a rheological model, the constants of which were obtained using a fractional derivative model. The spatial variability of the rheological model parameters is presented using theoretical semivariograms matching the empirical data. The semivariograms explain the spatial correlation of the tested constants of the rheological model of the substrate with the anchors. The results of non-destructive testing were influenced by factors such as time and consolidation processes. The obtained results allowed us to directly draw conclusions about the repetitiveness of embankment features and indirectly about the quality of their construction.

Fortification calls to mind images of high walls establishing clear lines between inside and outside and immobilizing enemies. However, even the most seemingly inert fortifications rely on subtle forms of mobility and more elaborate spatial relations. This article examines fortification as a technique of power in which warfare, the design of the built environment, and the organization of space are intertwined. Where research on fortification tends to emphasize the symbolic, sovereign aspirations of wall-building, the approach advanced here focuses on the spatial technologies and infrastructural projects of military architecture and engineering that remake space through martial means. The article follows the trajectory within military architecture by which linear fortifications became defense in depth and asks how transformations of ‘depth’ in contemporary warfare have come to integrate more complex, non-linear notions of space and time. By tracing the ways in which the curtain wall of Vauban’s bastion fortress transformed into the radar curtain, I argue that fortification constitutes a ‘becoming war’ in which ‘defensive’ war intensifies organized violence. As such, the concept of fortification proves indispensable for understanding the reinforced boundaries and delineated pathways cutting across the global space of contemporary warfare.

This article aims to analyze (from autopsy) mathematical motifs in the frontispieces to selected seventeenth-century Polish technical-military treatises (by Adam Freytag, Kazimierz Siemienowicz and Józef Naronowicz-Naroński). The frontispiece is considered here an iconographic source for the history of science and technology. The rationale for investigating this topic is the process of the progressive mathematization of technical knowledge in Europe in the 15th-18th centuries. It is the first study of this subject with regard to Polish technical-military writing. Only one other article is devoted to this issue (Delphine Schreuder, When Mars Meets Euclid. The Relationship between War and Mathematical Sciences in Frontispecies of Fortification Treatises, 2021), but it does not cover the works of Polish authors. There are also several general studies (mainly in art or architectural history) on frontispieces to fortification treaties (Armin Schlechter, Engraved Title Pages of Fortification Manuals, 2014, Jeroen Goudeau, Harnessed Heroes: Mars, the Title-page, and the Dutch Stadtholders, 2016). The analysis of the typographic compositions of the discussed frontispieces revealed three main motifs: 1. the connection between the art of war and mathematical knowledge, as far as the knowledge of fortification and artillery is concerned; 2. the degree to which those disciplines - both of which combine the practice of the battlefield with theory - were mathematicized; 3. the crucial importance of drafting and measuring instruments for these sciences. The article’s final section addresses the issue of the rhetorical and persuasive function of the frontispieces.

Статья посвящена «Трактату о земляных укреплениях» (1554 г.) итальянского фортификатора XVI в. Джамбаттисты Белуцци. Описываются разделы трактата, отмечаются особенности создания земляных укреплений в Италии XVI в. Высказывается гипотеза о связи технологий создания итальянских земляных укреплений и подобных крепостей в Московском великом княжестве. The article is devoted to the «Treatise on earth Fortifications» (1554) written by the military architect of the 16th century Giovan Battista Belluzzi. It describes sections of the treatise, and highlights distinctive features of earthwork fortifications in Italy in the 16th century. According to the hypothesis presented in the paper, there is a link between the technology of building Italian earth fortifications and that of similar fortresses in the Grand Duchy of Moscow.

Ancient city fortifications are one of the specific types of defensive architecture. Along with the buildings of castles, blocks of urban residential development, monastery complexes and field defensive structures, they formed a special type of architectural and urban planning objects. During their construction, the skills of both an architect, builder, and military engineer were often combined. Not so many objects of urban defense architecture have come down to our time. Therefore, every fragment of the city's defensive walls and earthen fortifications preserved today, as a rule, is a valuable document of its era and needs careful protection and preservation. Urban fortifications (as opposed to fortifications of castles or fortresses) were the objects of priority liquidation in the process of urban development. There are very few of them preserved in Ukraine, so their preservation and study is a matter of extreme importance. Lviv is a unique city on the map of Ukraine in terms of the development of urban fortifications. The article analyzes the reflection of objects and monuments of defense construction in the scientific and design documentation "Historical and Architectural Reference Plan of the City of Lviv". Data on the stages of development of Lviv fortifications are highlighted. Special attention is paid to the remains of fortifications that have been preserved in the archaeological form. Their identification, conservation and identification is important task for modern urban development projects. The paper makes hypotheses about some hitherto unidentified elements of fortifications of the XVII-XVIII centuries. Special emphasis is placed on the need for a special scientific study on the detailed reconstruction of all stages of the development of defense belts around the city center and suburbs of Lviv

The issue of adaptation and modernization of fortifications is very important nowadays. Military objects have lost their original purpose and have largely been left alone. Recently there has been a constant increase in interest in the military. This causes that more and more such objects are being adapted to the new function. This is the only way to protect them from degradation. An excellent example of this type of objects is the Kłodzko Fortress, which belongs to the best preserved and most impressive Silesian fortifications and is a unique example of military architecture on a Polish scale. After it was abandoned by the military, the technical condition of the object significantly deteriorated. The reason for that were attempts to introduce new functions to it. Currently, works are being carried out in order to remove some of the secondary layers. However, in order for the object to function properly nowadays it is necessary to create a plan for its modernization, which would cover the whole Fortress. Gradual changes would ensure efficient functioning and its development in the future.

The article considers comprehensively the evolution Vyborg’s fortifications through its main stages and reviews the inter-relationship and place of the Military Department’s infrastructural complexes in it. The conclusion outlines a strategy for their preservation and development in the context of modern Vyborg and estimates potential for the establishment of the city’ museum framework.

The antiquarian Martín de Ximena Jurado was a pioneer in the historical cartography of the old Kingdom of Jaén (Andalusia, Spain), where he tried to represent emblematic areas with their military defences with his particular graphic language. Not surprisingly, this territory has a high concentration of medieval fortifications. The data and drawings that he made of castles, towers, and defensive enclosures show a special interest in the militarisation of sites and places. He went beyond a simple toponymic study aimed only at finding a correspondence between the ancient name and the location of a settlement based on the evidence provided by coins and inscriptions. The medieval fortifications that he mapped were not drawn in ruins as one would expect they would be in the mid-17th century, but with their most characteristic construction elements. This fact gives it great relevance, as it represents the idealised hypothesis of the state of these constructions at the time of the Castilian conquest in the decades following the Almohad debacle in the Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa (1212).

The purpose of the study is to analyze the publishing activities of scientists of the Odessa association of History and Antiquities and to determine their contribution to the military-historical research of the Dnieper Ukraine Ukraine and the Crimean Peninsula. The methodology of the study is based on the principles of historicism, systematic, scientific, interdisciplinary. The following general historical methods have been used: historiographic analysis, historical-genetic, terminological analysis, comparative, typological. The author adheres to the civilization approach. Scientific novelty: the contribution of the Odessa association of History and Antiquities to the military-historical studies of the Dnieper Ukraine and the Crimean Peninsula is characterized on the basis of a wide range of published researches. Conclusions. Along with general archeological, the association presented studies related to military archeology and military history. The problems identified were raised in the publications of scientists: F. Brun, K. Stamati, I. Karelin, O. Kochubinsky. Military-historical studies were presented in several areas: topography, study and protection of fortifications, military confrontation of the Russian and Ottoman empires, history of Ukrainian Cossacks. The problems concerned the South of Ukraine, Crimea, Bessarabia. Particular attention was paid to the fortresses in Akkerman, Khotyn, Ishmael. The main topics of the publications were the Russo-Turkish wars, as well as individual episodes and processes related to them. A profound, professional analysis of events, in publications, combined with political engagement and duplication of existing imperial ideologues. Archaeographic surveys mainly concerned personal sources that reflected the local governance of Russian military officials in the Black Sea Fleet and fortifications, and described Turkish and Tatar campaigns. Although the research was largely sporadic, it resulted in the publication of a considerable amount of material and concentration in the Museum of the Society of Antiquities and Cartographic Sources.

Se analiza el sistema defensivo de La Fonteta, una de las fortificaciones fenicias mejor conocida de la península ibérica, en el marco de las nuevas tácticas de la poliorcética implantadas en el Mediterráneo Occidental a partir de la colonización fenicia, que supusieron la rápida adopción en las costas del mediodía y el sureste peninsular de estos novedosos sistemas de fortificación que pronto se generalizaron en todo el territorio peninsular de influencia oriental.La muralla de La Fonteta, erigida en torno al 600 a. C., presenta elementos característicos de una obra de carácter oriental, como su construcción mediante cajones macizos ajustada a parámetros métricos establecidos, la presencia de torres cuadrangulares o el uso de mampostería de piedra y alzados de adobe y tierra, rematados con almenas. Además, se han identificado forros ataludados, una rampa o glacis y un foso en “V”, algunos de indudable origen oriental, pero otros de claro influjo indígena. Palabras Clave: muralla, foso, glacis, antemural, FeniciosTopónimos: La Fonteta (Guardamar del Segura, Alicante),Periodo: Período orientalizante ABSTRACTIn this paper, the La Fonteta defensive system, one of the best-known Phoenician fortifications on the Iberian Peninsula, is analyzed within the framework of the new polyorcetic tactics introduced in the Western Mediterranean following Phoenician colonization. This involved the rapid deployment on the shores of Southern and Southeastern Iberia of these new fortification systems, which soon spread across throughout the entire Near Eastern influenced territory of the peninsula.The wall of La Fonteta, built around 600 BC., presents characteristic elements of a Near Eastern construction, such as the use of solid caissons adjusted to established metric parameters, the presence of quadrangular towers, or the employment of stone masonry and elevations of mudbricks and earth, topped with battlements. In addition, attached sloped walls, a ramp or glacis and a 'V'-shaped ditch have been identified, some of these features undoubtedly of Near Eastern origin, but others of clear indigenous influence. Keywords: wall, ditch, glacis, avant-mur, PhoeniciansPlane names: La Fonteta (Guardamar del Segura, Alicante),Period: Orientalizing Period REFERENCIASAlmagro-Gorbea, M.; Lorrio, A. J. y Torres, M. (2021), “Los focenses y la crisis de c. 500 a. C. en el Sudeste: de La Fonteta y Peña Negra a La Alcudia de Elche”, Lucentum, 40, pp. 63-110.Almagro-Gorbea, M. y Torres, M. (2007), “Las fortificaciones tartésicas en el Suroeste peninsular”, en L. Berrocal y P. Moret (eds.), Paisajes fortificados de la Edad del Hierro. Las murallas protohistóricas de la Meseta y la vertiente atlántica en su contexto europeo, Bibliotheca Archaeologica Hispana, 28, pp. 35-55.Arancibia, A. y Escalante M. M. (2006a), “La Málaga fenicio-púnica a la luz de los últimos hallazgos”, Mainake, 28, pp. 333-360.— (2006b), “Génesis y consolidación de la ciudad de Malaka”, en Memoria Arqueológica del Museo Picasso Málaga. Desde los orígenes hasta el siglo V d.C., pp. 41-78.— (2010), “Aportaciones a la arqueología urbana de Málaga, de la Málaga fenicia a la Málaga bizantina a través de los resultados de la excavación de C/. Císter 3–San Agustín 4“, en Anuario Arqueológico de Andalucía 2006, pp. 3636-3656.Barrionuevo, F., Ruiz Mata, D. y Pérez, C. J. (1999), “Fortificaciones de casernas del Castillo de Doña Blanca (El Puerto de Santa María, Cádiz)”, en Actas del XXIV Congreso Nacional de Arqueología (Cartagena, 1997), 3. Impacto colonial y Sureste ibérico, pp. 115-123.Berrocal, L. (2004), “La defensa de la comunidad. Sobre las funciones emblemáticas de las murallas protohistóricas en la península ibérica“, Gladius, 24, pp. 27-98.Blánquez, J. (2007), “Novedades arqueológicas en los asentamientos feniciopúnicos del Cerro del Prado y Carteia”, en J. L. López Castro (ed.), Las ciudades fenicio-púnicas en el Mediterráneo occidental, pp. 257-279.Bueno, P. (2014), “Un asentamiento del Bronce Final-Hierro I en el Cerro del Castillo, Chiclana, Cádiz. Nuevos datos para la interpretación de Gadeira”, en M. Botto (ed.), Los Fenicios en La Bahía de Cádiz, Collezione di Studi Fenici 46 (Pisa-Roma), pp. 225-251.Bueno, P. y Cerpa, J. (2008), “Un nuevo enclave fenicio descubierto en la Bahía de Cádiz. El Cerro del Castillo, Chiclana”, Spal, 17, pp. 169-206.Bueno, P., García Menárguez, A. y Prados, F. (2013), “Murallas fenicias de Occidente. Una valoración conjunta de las defensas del Cerro del Castillo (Chiclana, Cádiz) y del Cabezo Pequeño del Estaño (Guardamar, Alicante)”, Herakleion, 6, pp. 27-75.Cecchini, S. M. (1995), “Architecture militaire, civile et domestique partim Orient”, en V. Krings (ed.), La civilisation phénicienne et punique. Manuel de recherche, pp. 389-396.Cobos, L. (2010), “Actividad arqueológica puntual en bastión norte y muralla del yacimiento arqueológico de Doña Blanca (El Puerto de Santa María, Cádiz)”. Anuario Arqueológico de Andalucía de 2005, Cádiz, pp. 390-406.Díes Cusí, E. (2001), “La influencia de la arquitectura fenicia en las arquitecturas indígenas de la Península Ibérica (s. VIII-VII)”, en D. Ruiz Mata y S. Celestino (eds.), Arquitectura oriental y orientalizante en la Península Ibérica, Lenguas y culturas del antiguo Oriente Próximo, 4, pp. 69-122.Escacena, J. L. (2002), “Murallas fenicias para Tartessos. Un análisis darwinista”, Spal 11, pp. 69-105.Gailledrat, E. (2007), “La stratigraphie”, en P. Rouillard; E. Gailledrat y F. Sala (eds.), L’établissement protohistorique de La Fonteta (fin VIIIe-fin VIe siècle av. J.-C.), Collection de la Casa Velázquez, 96, pp. 23-98.Gal, Z. y Alexandre, Y. (2000), Ḥorbat Rosh Zayit. An Iron Age storage fort and village, IAA Reports 8, Jerusalén.García Alfonso, E. (2018), “Malaka en los siglos VII-VI a. C. Los orígenes de una ciudad-estado fenicia-occidental”, en D. García, S. López y E. García Alfonso (eds.), La tumba del guerrero. Un enterramiento excepcional en la Málaga fenicia del siglo VI a. C., pp. 25-74.García Menárguez, A. (1994), “El Cabezo Pequeño del Estaño, Guardamar del Segura. Un poblado protohistórico en el tramo final del río Segura”, en M. Molina, J. L. Cunchillos y A. González Blanco (coords.), El mundo púnico. Historia, sociedad y cultura (Cartagena, 17-19 de noviembre de 1990), pp. 269-280.García Menárguez, A. y Prados, F. (2014), “La presencia fenicia en la Península Ibérica. El Cabezo Pequeño del Estaño (Guardamar del Segura, Alicante)”, Trabajos de Prehistoria, 71.1, pp. 113-133.— (2017), “Las defensas y la trama urbana del Cabezo del Estaño de Guardamar. Un encuentro fortificado entre fenicios y nativos en la desembocadura del río Segura (Alicante)”, en F. Prados y F. Sala (eds.), El Oriente de Occidente. Fenicios y Púnicos en el área ibérica, pp. 51-78.García Menárguez, A., Prados, F. y Jiménez Vialás, H. (2020), “Del primer impacto fenicio a la consolidación del fenómeno urbano en la costa de Alicante: El Cabezo Pequeño del Estaño y el santuario del Castilo de Guardamar”, en J. L. López Castro (ed.), Entre Útica y Gadir. Navegación y colonización en el Mediterráneo occidental a comienzos del I milenio aC., pp. 293-313.González Prats, A. (2001), “Arquitectura orientalizante en el Levante peninsular”, en D. Ruiz Mata y S. Celestino, S. (eds.), Arquitectura oriental y orientalizante en la península ibérica, pp. 173-192.— (2002), “Los fenicios en la fachada oriental hispana”, en B. Costa y J. H. Fernández (coords.), La Colonización fenicia de Occidente: estado de la investigación en los inicios del siglo XXI, XVI Jornadas de Arqueología Fenicio-Púnica (Eivissa, 2001), Treballs del Museu Arqueológic d’Eivissa e Formentera, 50, pp. 127-143.— (2005), “Balanç de vint-i-cinc anys d’investigació sobre la influència i presència fenícia a la província d’Alacant”, en Fenicis i púnics als Països Catalans, Fonaments, 12, pp. 41-64.— (2007), “Rasgos arquitectónicos y urbanísticos de La Fonteta”, en J. L. López Castro (ed.), Las ciudades fenicio-púnicas en el Mediterráneo Occidental, pp. 69-82.— (2010), “La colonia fenicia de La Fonteta, en Guardamar del Segura”, Arqueología y museo: museos municipales en el MARQ [MARQ, diciembre 2010-febrero 2011], pp. 66-79.— (2011), La Fonteta. Excavaciones de 1996-2002 en la colonia fenicia de la actual desembocadura del río Segura (Guardamar del Segura, Alicante), vol. I, Seminarios Internacionales sobre Temas Fenicios. Alicante.— (2014), La Fonteta-II. Estudio de los materiales arqueológicos hallados en la colonia fenicia de la actual desembocadura del río Segura (Guardamar del Segura, Alicante), vol. I y II, Alicante.González Prats, A. y Ruiz Segura, E. (2000), El yacimiento fenicio de La Fonteta (Guardamar del Segura, Alicante, Comunidad Valenciana), Serie Popular núm. 4, Valencia.Kempinski, A. (1992), “Middle and Late Bronze Age Fortifications”, en A. Kempinski, R. Reich y H. Katzenstein (eds.), The Architecture of Ancient Israel. From the Prehistoric to the Persian Periods. In Memory of Immanuel (Manya) Dunayevsky. Jerusalén, pp. 127-142.Leriche, P. (1992), “Fortifications 1. Orient”, en E. Lipinski (ed.), Dictionnaire de la civilization phénicienne et punique. Bruselas-París, pp. 172-175.López Castro, J. L., Alemán, B. y Moya, L. (2010), “Abdera y su territorio. Descubrimientos recientes”, Mainake, 32, pp. 91-107.López Castro, J. L., Manzano, F. y Alemán, B. (2010), “Altos de Reveque: un asentamiento fortificado fenicio-púnico en el litoral de Andalucía oriental”, Archivo Español de Arqueología, 83, pp. 27-46.López Castro, J. L. y Mora, B. (2002), “Malaka y las ciudades fenicias en el occidente del Mediterráneo. Siglos VI a.C.-I d.C.”, Mainake 24, pp. 181-214.Lorrio, A. J., López Rosendo, E. y Torres, M. (2021), “El sistema defensivo de la ciudad fenicia de La Fonteta (Guardamar del Segura, Alicante). Campaña de 2018-2019”, Madrider Mitteilungen, 62, pp. 330-386.Maia, M. G. P. (2000), “Tavira fenícia. O território para Ocidente do Guadiana, nos inícios do I milénio a.C.”, en A. González Prats (ed.), Fenicios y territorio. Actas del II Seminario Internacional sobre temas fenicios, pp. 121-150.Maia, M. G. P. y Fraga da Silva, L. (2004), “O culto de Baal en Tavira”, Huelva Arqueológica, 20, pp. 171-194.Montanero, D. (2008), “Los sistemas defensivos de origen fenicio-púnico del Sureste peninsular (siglos VIII-III a.C.). Nuevas interpretaciones”, en B. Costa y J. H. Fernández (eds.), Arquitectura defensiva fenicio-púnica. XXII Jornadas de Arqueología Fenicio-Púnica (Eivissa, 2007). Treballs del Museu Arqueològic d'Eivissa i Formentera, 61, pp. 91-144.— (2020), “Demolishing Casemate Walls. Pasos hacia una primera clasificación tipológica de las murallas de la Edad del Hierro IIA-IIB en Fenicia y en el norte de Israel”, en S. Celestino y E. Rodríguez (eds.), Un viaje entre Oriente y el Occidente del Mediterráneo. IX Congreso Internacional de estudios Fenicios y Púnicos, Mytra, 5, pp. 443-459.Moret, P. (1996), Les fortifications ibériques. De la fin de l’Âge du Bronze à la conquête romaine, Collection de la Casa de Velázquez 56. Madrid.— (2007), “L’enceinte”, en P. Rouillard, E. Gailledrat y F. Sala (eds.), L’établissement protohistorique de La Fonteta (fin VIIIe-fin VIe siècle av. J.-C.), Fouilles de la Rábita de Guardamar 2, Collection de la Casa de Velázquez, 96, pp. 126-140.Niemeyer, H. G. (1986), “El yacimiento fenicio de Toscanos: urbanística y función”, en G. del Olmo y M. E. Aubet, Los fenicios en la península ibérica, 1, pp. 109-126.Pappa, E. (2013), Early Iron Age exchange in the West: Phoenicians in the Mediterranean and the Atlantic, Leuven-París-Walpole.Prados, F. y Blánquez, J. (2007), “Las fortificaciones coloniales de la península ibérica: de los modelos orientales a los sistemas púnico-helenísticos”, en L. Berrocal y P. Moret (eds.), Paisajes fortificados de la Edad del Hierro. Las murallas protohistóricas de la Meseta y la vertiente atlántica en su contexto europeo, Bibliotheca Archaeologica Hispana, 28, pp. 57-74.Prados, F., García Menárguez, A. y Jiménez Vialás, H. (2018), “Metalurgia fenicia en el sureste ibérico: el taller del Cabezo Pequeño del Estaño (Guardamar, Alicante)”, Complutum, 29.1, pp. 79-94.Recio, A. (1988), “Consideraciones acerca del urbanismo de Malaka fenicio-punica”, Mainake, 10, pp. 75-82.— (1990), La cerámica fenicio-púnica, griega y etrusca del sondeo de san Agustín, Málaga.Rodero, V. y Berrocal, L. (2011-12), “Análisis morfoestructural de la arquitectura defensiva en el ámbito indígena y colonial de la protohistoria antigua peninsular (ca. 1000-600 A. C.)”, Cuadernos de Prehistoria y Arqueología de la UAM, 37-38, pp. 223-239.Roldán, L., Bendala, M.; Blánquez, J. y Martínez Lillo, P. (dirs.) (2006), Estudio histórico-arqueológico de la ciudad de Carteia (San Roque, Cádiz) 1994-1999. Madrid.Rouillard, P., Gailledrat, E. y Sala, F. (2007), L’établissement protohistorique de La Fonteta (fin VIIIe-fin VIe siècle av. J.-C.), Fouilles de la Rábita de Guardamar 2, Collection de la Casa de Velázquez, 96, Madrid.Ruiz Mata, D. (2001), “Arquitectura y urbanismo en la ciudad protohistórica del Castillo de Doña Blanca (El Puerto de Santa María, Cádiz)”, en D. Ruiz Mata y S. Celestino (eds.), Arquitectura oriental y orientalizante en la Península Ibérica, Madrid, pp. 261-274.Ruiz Mata, D. y Pérez, C. (1995), El poblado fenicio del Castillo de Doña Blanca (El Puerto de Santa María, Cádiz), Biblioteca de Temas Portuenses, 5. El Puerto de Santa María.— (2020), “Fenicios en la Bahía gaditana: su construcción política, económica e ideológica (siglo VIII a.C.). El caso del Castillo de Doña Blanca”, en J. L. López Castro (ed.), Entre Útica y Gadir. Navegación y colonización en el Mediterráneo occidental a comienzos del I milenio aC., pp. 405-431.Sánchez Sánchez-Moreno, V. M., Galindo, L., Juzgado, M. y Dumas, M. (2012), “El asentamiento fenicio de “La Rebanadilla” a finales del siglo IX a.C.”, en E. García Alfonso (ed.), Diez años de arqueología fenicia en la provincia de Málaga, pp. 137-170.Sánchez Sánchez-Moreno, V. M., Galindo, L. y Juzgado, M. (2020), “El santuario fenicio de La Rebanadilla”, en J. L. López Castro (ed.), Entre Utica y Gadir. Navegación y colonización fenicia en el Mediterráneo occidental a comienzos del I milenio AC, pp. 189-200.Schubart, H. (1988), “Vorbericht über die Grabungskampagne 1984 im Bereich der phönizischen Siedlung und der Befestigungsmauer, en Forschungen zur Archäologie und Geologie im Raum von Torre del Mar 1983/1984, MB, 14 (Maguncia 1988), pp. 172-188.— (2000), “Alarcón. El yacimiento fenicio y las fortificaciones en la cima de Toscanos”, en A. González Prats (ed.), Fenicios y territorio. Actas del II Seminario Internacional sobre temas fenicios. Alicante, pp. 263-294.Suárez, J., Escalante, M. M., Cisneros, M. I., Mayorga, J. y Fernández Rodríguez, L. E. (2007), “Territorio y urbanismo fenicio-púnico en la Bahía de Málaga. Siglos VIII-V a.C.”, en J. L. López Castro (ed.), Las ciudades fenicio-púnicas en el Mediterráneo occidental, pp. 209-232.Wagner, C. G. (2007), “El barco negro en la costa. Reflexiones sobre el miedo y la colonización fenicia en la tierra de Tarsis“, en D. Plácido, F. J. Moreno Arrastio y L. Ruiz Cabrero (eds.), Necedad, sabiduría y verdad: el legado de Juan Cascajero, Gerión Extra, pp. 121-131.

The problem of studies of the fortification development of the Lviv midtown has a long history. As early, Bartlomej Zimorowicz was the first author who covers the history of Lviv at the 17th century. In his work "Leopolis Triplex" he pays a lot of attention to fortifications and presents materials and facts about their construction. Other researchers later relied on his work, in particular, Yaroslaw Widawski, Janusz Witwicki, Wladyslav Tomkewicz and others. Denys Zubrytskyi also made a great contribution to uncovering unknown pages of the construction of Lviv fortifications. He was engaged in organizing the Lviv archives, and discovered and published a lot of information about the dates and features of the construction and modernization of fortification objects. The most complete works devoted to the defensive fortifications of the Lviv midtown are the publications of W. Tomkewicz and Ja. Witwicki. These authors conducted research in the interwar period, but their materials were published in the 1970s. It should be pointed out the important publications of various authors in the magazine "Halytska brama", several issues of which were devoted to the history of the fortifications of Lviv. In a synthesized form, the question of the construction of Lviv's defense structures and their reconstruction in different historical periods is revealed in a new work on the history of Lviv's architecture, published under the general editorship of Yuriy Biryulyov. In a somewhat shorter version, the stages of development of Lviv fortifications are revealed in the "Atlas of historical cities. Lviv". In our work, we aim to analyze the sources and literature that highlight the history of architecture only so-called High defensive wall of Lviv midtown. This was the first brick line of fortifications in the center of the city. It began to be built in the first years of the 14th century, and it was used for defensive purposes until the end of the 18th century. Based on the results of the analysis, we have identified 4 main stages of the architectural transformation of this defensive structure.

This paper presents the results of a study of fortified settlements of the first half of the 1st millennium AD in Altai. It established that all the settlements of this period are located in the northern part of the region. In total there are seven fortified settlements. The article describes their topographical location and aspects of their location. At two of the sites limited excavations were made of part of the fortifications. At both of these the work established the existence of two rows of ramparts and ditches associated with deeper shafts constructed using clay, earth and wood, and a clay matrix. The fortifications share characteristics indicating that local building traditions were followed in their construction. At one site the excavation of a shaft revealed the ritual burial of a sheep. The other settlements were examined by means of test pits. Sherds of pottery were found at all the settlements, along with fragments of animal bones and bone artifacts. The cumulative evidence suggests that most if not all of these fortifications were built in a short period of time in a tense military and political situation.

Monasteries in the XVII–XVIII centuries to a greater or lesser extent were the cultural centers of the country, centers of theological thought, spiritual and intellectual activity. It is worth noting that the sacred buildings of that time are a sign of the presence of a certain people in the territory. The monastery in Shcheploty was a small Ukrainian monastery that played its own role in this process. This Monastery is little known, and the surviving relics are not included in the register of monuments and are not protected by the law, which threatens the preservation of part of the history of sacred architecture of Ukraine. The monastery in Shcheploty is poorly studied. There are work of Slobodyan (Slobodyan V., 1998.) in the context of wooden sacred architecture with exploration of the main historical aspects of the monastery and the first attempt of the author to conduct architectural research in 2017 (Khokhon M., 2017). On the basis of measurements, the analysis of historical data the graphic reconstruction of the lost monastery is carried out. It is worth noting that the fortifications could have different shapes and combinations. Including for the fence there are two options: 1) the fence was arranged on the crown of the shaft; 2) the fence was arranged on the outer perimeter of the defensive moat (Bogdanowski, J., 1996). Both scenarios were possible, the reconstruction was carried out for the first option and is designed to open a discussion in the scientific community and stimulate further research of the monastery. As a result of the research It is determined that the monastery consisted of two wooden churches of different times, a bell tower with a fence of the sacred territory and monastic cells with an economic part and fortifications. Archaeological excavations should determine the presence of burials near the former churches. The territory of the monastery occupied about 0.7 hectares. The overall dimensions of the fortifications in the widest part were 115x80 m. The defensive perimeter consisted of an earthen rampart, a moat, bastions on the corners, a fence and a gate. The configuration had an irregular layout close to an irregular trapezoid. It has been determined that the historic territory is privately owned and has an inappropriate purpose, which creates certain legal complications in the museification of shafts at the initiative of local authorities. The defensive relics of the monastery in Shcheploty are an important element of the history of Ukrainian defensive sacred architecture. Despite the relatively small size of the monastery, the defense system was designed in the spirit of the European fortification schools. The remains of fortifications and monasteries need to be included in the register of monuments of Ukraine.

The article is focused on the history of Koknese Fortress Front fortifications which were built from September 1700 to May 1701 in order to enhance the defence power of Koknese Fortress. The total length of the defence line exceeded 4 km. The line contained 25 redoubts. After the loss of Spilve battle close to Riga, the Saxon troops retreated from Koknese, on 25 July 1701 Koknese Fortress was blown up and after that was not used for military purposes anymore. The outer defence line of Koknese Fortress never faced military attacks and after 1701 was abandoned, partially levelled by agriculture work, destroyed by activities of the First and the Second World Wars, building of houses, roads and motorway, establishing a cemetery on one of the earthworks, flooding by Pļaviņas hydroelectric power station, etc. At present the front defence system of Koknese Fortress has partially survived, but until the last years the particular system of defence line had not been clearly identified. Now it has been done comparing an image of Koknese from 1701 with the results of aerial and traditional reconnaissance. Koknese front fortification line is a unique monument under circumstances of Latvia.

Abstract In the late Byzantine period, the region of Epirus was beset by successive military conflicts as Byzantines, Italians, Albanians, Serbs, and Ottomans claimed their own share of its territory. Minor lordships became the dominant type of political entity from the fourteenth century onward and were heavily dependent on a “sophisticated” system of fortifications, consisting of larger and smaller fortresses, castles, forts, and towers. These fortifications were of vital significance for the control of strategic points of interest. But the lack of manpower remained a significant problem; this meant that during serious conflicts, the standing forces were bolstered by civilians or mercenaries. This article describes the conduct of warfare in relation to the fortifications and the defensive structure of Epirus in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Moreover, it examines available information on manpower (captains, crossbowmen, archers, soldiers, etc.) drawn from the sources, which are scarce, fragmentary, and incomplete. Thus, this piece of information allows us to shed light only on the castle of Riniasa on the northwestern coast of Epirus. Its study may offer a clearer image of other similar castles in the region and their role in medieval warfare.

<p>The project, cofinanced by the line of the UE “INTERREG IIIA”, was focused, on the one hand, in Identification, Study, Cataloguing and Valuation of missing and preserved components of defensive fortifications, located in the geographical area under study. On the other hand were put up in virtual paths different fortifications that made up the defensive system. Besides, the foundations were laid for the development of sustainable Management Plans for the property, with the consequent strengthening of local identities and the improvement of the local tourist promotion. In popularization phase, a Database website was developed and it will be enriched by military history experts, and the results were announced in conferences and exhibitions.</p>

Defensive structures have been applied as the permanent elements of the Iranian urbanism, from the first phases of sedentism in the Neolithic period onwards. Following the Iranian tradition in architecture, Sasanian fortifications having local features were constructed in adaptation with the regional circumstances. Nevertheless, we can find some similarities in the components of the defensive installations. The defensive structures located within the Sasanian territory turned Iran into the unconquerable fortress providing Sasanians with military, political, cultural, and economic dominance over a vast area of the ancient world for more than four centuries.

Abstracttitle SUMMARY /title The National Archive of Lucca holds an extensive collection of drawings that document a wide-ranging campaign of topographical surveys carried out between 1580 and 1583 for the purpose of tracing a detailed map of fortifications under the domain of the Republic of Lucca. The surveys lie chronologically between the map drawn by the military engineer Alessandro Resta in 1567 and the accurate chorography of the State of Lucca produced at the end of the same century by the Paduan cosmographer Giovanni Antonio Magini. Historical circumstances suggest that the surveys may be attributed to the military engineer Vincenzo Civitali, who had been hired during that period to superintend the State's fortifications along the border between the Duchy of Modena and the Grand Duchy of Tuscany. Apart from providing information on the Republic's cartographic and defense projects, these drawings provide firsthand documentation of the work of a 16th C. topographer, as well as revealing the strategy applied when locating measuring stations which often coincided with a signaling tower, the choice of measuring instruments most readily associated with the simple theodolite, and the adoption of a surveying methodology that consisted in measuring azimuths and distances according to the codified precepts of 16th C. treatise writers.