DOCSLIB.ORG

3. Middle Bronze Age Fortifications

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
3. Middle Bronze Age Fortifications 3. MIDDLE BRONZE AGE FORTIFICATIONS Let him who desires peace, prepare for war. Vegetius Renatus, Epitome Book 3, Preface ANY of the main elements of Middle Bronze fosse) does not serve as an adequate criterion for the MAge defenses in the Levant, such as earthen establishment of a site typology since this may erro­ ramparts (Pennells 1983 ), gates (Gregori 1986; neously imply that these features were continuous Herzog 1986; G. R. H. Wright 1984), and fosses around the site. Special attention is paid, instead, to (Oredsson 2000), have been well documented and the existence of such features in identifiable recurring studied over the last several decades. Various surveys combinations at multiple settlements, which are of Middle Bronze Age fortifications have comple­ likely to suggest a concerted defensive strategy. mented these reports (G. R. H. Wright 1985a; Prior to attempting to create a site typology like Kempinski 1992c; Fritz 1995:27ff.). Yet no single the one mentioned above it is necessary to establish a work provides a comprehensive description of the typology of Middle Bronze Age defensive elements features, functions, and nature of the construction of that accounts for the historical development of each Middle Bronze Age fortifications and how these as­ feature and its regional distribution. In the following pects related to the concerns of Bronze Age warfare. discussion of earthen ramparts, for example, it is as­ In the absence of such a treatment many basic ques­ sumed therefore that a single rampart constitutes a tions remain. For example, which elements are ubiq­ continuous built feature of uniform dimensions (i.e., uitous to fortifications during the Middle Bronze height, width, and slope) running between gates. Age, and which are rare? When do the various ele­ Likewise, while a glacis may have covered one slope ments develop and how do they relate to the techno­ of a tell or an earthen rampart, it cannot be assumed logical developments in weaponry described in the that it featured a similar construction in other areas preceding chapter? Is it possible to suggest that par­ around the site. Finally, issues of preservation must ticular brick sizes or site types were confined to cer­ also be taken into consideration when determining tain regions in the Middle Bronze Age? Are particular the existence and extent of certain features. construction techniques or styles limited to certain In this chapter an attempt has been made to ad­ regions or polities? vance a typology of the characteristic features of The use of simplistic criteria for site typologies, Middle Bronze Age fortifications. The focus is upon such as the presence or absence of earthen ramparts, components such as walls, gates, towers, bastions, has resulted in misconceptions regarding defensive ramparts, glacis, revetment and retaining walls, and strategies during this period. As noted in chapter I fosses, which are frequently identified at archaeo­ there are inherent problems with existing site typolo­ logical sites. Each feature is examined with specific gies, which assume that the use of an earthen rampart attention to its construction, function, typology, com­ around one portion of a settlement justifies its inclu­ paranda, and geographic point of origin. The basic sion in a separate category of settlements (see espe­ elements of their construction, average dimensions, cially comments on Herzog's typology on pp. 11 f.). the period during which they functioned, as well as Such an approach obscures that so-called "ram­ the specific roles that they filled are discussed, as are parted" settlements were not completely surrounded the materials used in their construction. Finally, a by a continuous rampart of one type. While sites such chronological typology of fortified sites in the Levant as Qatna, Timnah, Sefinat-Nouh, and others may is offered for the EB IV through the LB I based upon provide examples of this type of settlement­ the occurrence and function of these architectural completely surrounded by a single type of defense­ features. Because the conclusions provided in this conditions at many settlements prohibited the adop­ chapter are drawn from the catalog of fortified Mid­ tion of a single fortification strategy. A combination dle Bronze Age settlements that are provided in this of defensive strategies was often necessary to prepare work (see catalogs 1 and 2), citations of reports are a settlement's defenses in light of local conditions, not included in this chapter. The reader will find, in­ areas occupied at the time of construction, and un­ stead, that exemplars of the features discussed are even terrain. For this reason the presence of ramparts listed in parentheses. (The Akkadian terms for these or any single architectural feature ( e.g., glacis and features are discussed in chapter 5.) 48 The Evolution of Warfare and Defenses in the Levant during the Bronze Age A. Architectural Elements 1. EARTHEN RAMPARTS the definition of a rampart should emphasize that earthen ramparts were not limited to the Middle Earthen ramparts are recognized as an element almost Bronze Age since they were already being erected exclusive to Middle Bronze Age fortifications in the during the third millennium in the northern Levant Levant. However, the interchangeable use of the and northwestern Mesopotamia, as demonstrated terms rampart and glacis, which were originally bor­ below. Furthermore, based upon their morphological rowed from French terms for medieval fortifications, characteristics two distinct types of earthen ramparts has obscured the important distinction between these can be identified: the freestanding rampart and the features. As will be demonstrated below, the earthen supplemental rampart. rampart and glacis protected against the approach of aggressors and the effects of erosion respectively. a. Freestanding Ramparts The clearest definition of a rampart thus far is found in the glossary for The Architecture of Ancient A freestanding rampart is defined as an artificial Israel (Reich and Katzenstein 1992), and for this earthen embankment that featured an interior and exte­ reason I have adopted it in the following discussion. 1 rior slope, which was intended to raise the base of the Ronny Reich and Hannah Katzenstein summarize the fortification wall above the surrounding plain.3 Al­ consensus that has emerged among Levantine ar­ though such ramparts were often built around entire chaeologists regarding the use of the term rampart, settlements, they were also constructed around por­ which they identify as an "earthen mound piled up tions of settlements that were considered especially around a city as a fortification or part of it" (ibid., vulnerable due to their topography. Freestanding ram­ 319). They define the glacis as: parts (as well as supplemental ramparts) were sur­ mounted by defensive walls, although frequently the the outer facing of [an] earthen rampart which serves remains of such walls are poorly preserved if at all ( for as a fortification of the lower slope of a mound (tell), discussion of fortification walls, see pp. 59ff.). or the lower outer-sloping foot of the city-wall. Con­ Freestanding ramparts are the easiest type of ram­ structed of different materials such as: beaten earth, lime plaster, bricks, stones, etc. (ibid., 316).2 part to identify because they often contribute to the formation of crater-like tells (Figure 6 below). Set­ Unfortunately, while their definition of rampart tlements located in fairly open areas that lacked any agrees with the data provided below, describing the natural defenses were often completely enclosed by glacis as "the lower outer-sloping foot of the city­ freestanding ramparts ( e.g., Ebia, Qatna, Tuqan, Dan, wall" does not adequately distinguish between the Ashkelon, Yavneh-Yam, and Timnah). However, it is morphological and functional aspects of glacis and also noteworthy that site morphological processes ramparts. The distinction rests on the fundamental and continuous occupation of settlements have often observation that an earthen rampart is simply an em­ obscured or even destroyed traces of freestanding bankment built to impede the advance of an enemy ramparts at some sites, particularly in the western approaching the fortification wall by elevating the Levant where precipitation is much greater than to wall, while a glacis is merely a surface treatment for the east. These "craters" may also have been filled in the slope of the rampart or tell, which was intended over time by subsequent occupation, thus erasing the primarily to protect it from erosion (for discussion of rampart's characteristic topographic signature ( e.g., glacis, see pp. 55f.). If the glacis actually impeded the Kabri). This may be the case at sites with saddle-like enemy, this was an unintended result. Additionally, appearances where gates would have been located in 1These definitions find support in G. R. H. Wright's Ancient 3Kempinski referred to this type of rampart as a "double­ Building in South Syria and Palestine (1985a:183f.), even sloped rampart" (1992d:175). Peter Parr (1968) and Jacob though he did not explicitly define these terms. Kaplan ( 1975) advanced other terminology to describe 2Aharon Kempinski 's ( 1992c) contribution in the same earthen ramparts based on the presence or absence of forti­ volume ignores the distinction drawn by Reich and Katzen­ fication walls. Ramparts with walls within them, which are stein between the terms glacis and rampart. Kempinski identified as core walls in this chapter (see p. 54), were defines a glacis as "a sloping, external retaining wall" that called "wall ramparts," while ramparts without walls were "protects the base of the city-wall by keeping besiegers identified as "freestanding ramparts" according to Kaplan away" (ibid., 129). (I 975: I). .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Northgate Reconstruction
    131 7 THE NORTHGATE RECONSTRUCTION P Holder and J Walker INTRODUCTION have come from the supposedly ancient quarries at Collyhurst some few kilometres north-east of the The Unit was asked to provide advice and fort. As this source was not available, Hollington assistance to Manchester City Council so that the Red Sandstone from Staffordshire was used to form City could reconstruct the Roman fort wall and a wall of coursed facing blocks 200-320 mm long by defences at Manchester as they would have appeared 140-250 mm deep by 100-120 mm thick. York stone around the beginning of the 3rd century (Phase 4). was used for paving, steps and copings. A recipe for the right type of mortar, which consisted of This short report has been included in the volume three parts river sand, three parts building sand, in order that a record of the archaeological work two parts lime and one part white cement, was should be available for visitors to the site. obtained from Hampshire County Council. The Ditches and Roods The Wall and Rampart The Phase 4a (see Chapter 4, Area B) ditches were Only the foundations and part of the first course re-establised along their original line to form a of the wall survived (see Chapter 4, Phase 4, Area defensive circuit consisting of an outer V-shaped A). The underlying foundations consisted of ditch in front of a smaller inner ditch running interleaved layers of rammed clay and river close to the fort wall. cobble. On top of the foundations of the fort wall lay traces of a chamfered plinth (see Chapter 5g) There were three original roads; the main road made up of large red sandstone blocks, behind from the Northgate that ran up to Deansgate, the which was a rough rubble backing.
    [Show full text]
  • The Antonine Wall, the Roman Frontier in Scotland, Was the Most and Northerly Frontier of the Roman Empire for a Generation from AD 142
    Breeze The Antonine Wall, the Roman frontier in Scotland, was the most and northerly frontier of the Roman Empire for a generation from AD 142. Hanson It is a World Heritage Site and Scotland’s largest ancient monument. The Antonine Wall Today, it cuts across the densely populated central belt between Forth (eds) and Clyde. In The Antonine Wall: Papers in Honour of Professor Lawrence Keppie, Papers in honour of nearly 40 archaeologists, historians and heritage managers present their researches on the Antonine Wall in recognition of the work Professor Lawrence Keppie of Lawrence Keppie, formerly Professor of Roman History and Wall Antonine The Archaeology at the Hunterian Museum, Glasgow University, who spent edited by much of his academic career recording and studying the Wall. The 32 papers cover a wide variety of aspects, embracing the environmental and prehistoric background to the Wall, its structure, planning and David J. Breeze and William S. Hanson construction, military deployment on its line, associated artefacts and inscriptions, the logistics of its supply, as well as new insights into the study of its history. Due attention is paid to the people of the Wall, not just the ofcers and soldiers, but their womenfolk and children. Important aspects of the book are new developments in the recording, interpretation and presentation of the Antonine Wall to today’s visitors. Considerable use is also made of modern scientifc techniques, from pollen, soil and spectrographic analysis to geophysical survey and airborne laser scanning. In short, the papers embody present- day cutting edge research on, and summarise the most up-to-date understanding of, Rome’s shortest-lived frontier.
    [Show full text]
  • REVITALIZATION of GOLUBAC FORTRESS - PROJECT DESIGN ALBO-Inzenjering Beograd D.O.O
    European Union Project Implemented Funded Project by Golubac Municipality REVITALIZATION OF GOLUBAC FORTRESS - PROJECT DESIGN ALBO-inzenjering Beograd d.o.o. preduzece za projektovanje i inzenjering - Beograd European Union Project Implemented Project Design and Feasibility Study Funded Project by Golubac Municipality for Revitalization of Golubac Fortress Chief Designer: MARIJA JOVIN, graduate architectural engineer Consultants for concept of revitalization: DR MIOMIR KORAC, archaeologist SINISA TEMERINSKI, architectural engineer Designers: ALEKSANDRA BANOVIC, graduate architectural engineer, town-planning solution VESNA VANDIC, graduate lawyer, program, legal and economic aspect NENAD KIS, graduate civil engineer, constructive system BRANISLAV JOVIN, graduate architectural engineer, town-planning solution SAVO DJAKONOVIC, graduate civil engineer, tunnel construction SLAVKO DJERFI, graduate civil engineer, transport solution Revitalization of Golubac Fortress NIKOLA CICA, graduate electrical engineer, lighting and electrical installations ILIJA MIHAJLOVIC, graduate mechanical engineer, thermo-technical installations BORIS HOROSAVIN, graduate art historian, computer visualization Project Design Belgrade 2009. Revitalization of the Golubac Fortress Contents Introduction 1 Transport structure 11 Legal basis and jurisdictions 1 Electrical system 15 Acts on Protection 1 Protection from atmospheric discharges 19 Macro location and geographical position of the Golubac fortress 1 Thermo-technical installations 19 Physical characteristics of
    [Show full text]
  • Searching for Viking Age Fortresses with Automatic Landscape Classification and Feature Detection
    remote sensing Article Searching for Viking Age Fortresses with Automatic Landscape Classification and Feature Detection David Stott 1,2, Søren Munch Kristiansen 2,3,* and Søren Michael Sindbæk 3 1 Department of Archaeological Science and Conservation, Moesgaard Museum, Moesgård Allé 20, 8270 Højbjerg, Denmark 2 Department of Geoscience, Aarhus University, Høegh-Guldbergs Gade 2, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark 3 Center for Urban Network Evolutions (UrbNet), Aarhus University, Moesgård Allé 20, 8270 Højbjerg, Denmark * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +45-2338-2424 Received: 19 June 2019; Accepted: 25 July 2019; Published: 12 August 2019 Abstract: Across the world, cultural heritage is eradicated at an unprecedented rate by development, agriculture, and natural erosion. Remote sensing using airborne and satellite sensors is an essential tool for rapidly investigating human traces over large surfaces of our planet, but even large monumental structures may be visible as only faint indications on the surface. In this paper, we demonstrate the utility of a machine learning approach using airborne laser scanning data to address a “needle-in-a-haystack” problem, which involves the search for remnants of Viking ring fortresses throughout Denmark. First ring detection was applied using the Hough circle transformations and template matching, which detected 202,048 circular features in Denmark. This was reduced to 199 candidate sites by using their geometric properties and the application of machine learning techniques to classify the cultural and topographic context of the features. Two of these near perfectly circular features are convincing candidates for Viking Age fortresses, and two are candidates for either glacial landscape features or simple meteor craters.
    [Show full text]
  • Oxford's Northern Defences: Archaeological Studies 1971- 1982
    Oxford's Northern Defences: Archaeological Studies 1971- 1982 By BRIAN DURHAM, CLA IRE HALPIN and NICHOLAS PALMER SUMMARY Fi ve small projects on Oxford's north defensive Line show how the vulnerable side of the town was secured Jrom its Late Saxon Joundation until tM Civil War. The north defence oj the Late Saxon bllrh is confinned, and the western line is strongly indicated. A diversion of the defensive line around the North Gate church seems to predale Ihe mainJree-slanding slone walls oJlhe 131h cenlury. New daling evidence is JurnishedJor Ihe ouler wall east oJSmilhgale, and Ihe exislence oJbaslions in il is confirmed. The medieval defences are shown to have been extensivery refurbished in the Civil War. INTRODUCTION he excavations embodied in this report represent archaeological opportunities T provided by normal commercial and University developments which shed light on various aspects of Oxford's northern defences. The initiative for the studies came in most cases from Tom Hassall, director successively of the Oxford Archaeological Excavation Committee and of the Oxfordshire Archaeological Unit, and the writers are duly grateful to him. The first archaeological excavation of the northern defences was carried out in 1899 when a c.12m. length of the city wall in the Clarendon Quadrangle was exposed.' Part of this stretch was again revealed in 1938 when the Old and New Bodleian Libraries were linked by a tunnel, giving the first and only complete section through the medieval defence.2 In the late 19405 there was renewed interest, with the University Archaeological Society searching for a continuation of the Late Saxon defences on the Canal Wharf site before the building ofNuffield College, and A.G.
    [Show full text]
  • Fortification of the Medieval Fort Isar – Shtip
    Trajče NACEV Fortification of the Medieval Fort Isar – Shtip UDK 94:623.1(497.731)”653” University “Goce Delcev” Stip [email protected]; [email protected] Abstract: The medieval fort Isar, which was built on top of the ruins of the antique town of Astibo, is located on the hill with a North-South orientation in the central city core. The fortification had its largest increase during the 14th century and from this period we have the best preserved architectonic remains of the fortification. The entire fort is surrounded by fortification walls, with the main entrance in their eastern portion. The suburbs are located on the eastern and southern slopes of the Isar hill. At the highest part (the acropolis) there was another, smaller fortification, probably a feudal residence with a remarkable main tower (Donjon). The article reviews the fortification in the context of the results from the 2001 – 2002 and 2008 – 2010 excavation campaigns. During the first campaign, one of the most significant discoveries was the second tower, a counterpart to the main Donjon tower, and the entrance to the main part of the acropolis positioned between them. With the second 2008 – 2010 campaign, the entire eastern fortification wall of the Isar fort was uncovered. Key words: fortification, fort, curtain wall, tower. The medieval fort Isar (Fig. 1) (Pl. 1) that sprouted on the ruins of the ancient city Astibo, is located on a dominant hill between the Bregalnica river from the north and west and Otinja from the south and east, in the downtown core, in the north –south direction.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the Atlas of Hillforts of Britain and Ireland Hillfort Survey – Notes For
    The Atlas of Hillforts of Britain and Ireland Hillfort survey – notes for guidance The collection of surveys for the Atlas is now finished but you can use this form and the accompanying Notes for Guidance for your own surveys. Please do not send your results to the Atlas. If you want to compare your results to those in the Atlas go to https://hillforts.arch.ox.ac.uk These notes provide more information about how to fill in the Hillfort Survey form. This original Atlas survey has three aims: 1. To gather information for the Atlas of Hillforts of Britain and Ireland project. The results will be made widely available. 2. To enable people to learn more about hillforts in a structured informed way, to encourage an understanding of the characteristics and details of hillforts and how they differ. 3. To record any damage/erosion occurring to hillforts (record at question 5.1). Important: What is a hillfort? This is difficult to answer precisely although there are three criteria which come together to make a site a ‘hillfort’ – the scale of the enclosing works (ramparts/banks/walls and ditches, and entrances); the topographical position, not always on the top of a hill but often ‘prominent’ in the local landscape in some way; the enclosed area, very variable from region to region and also within regions. Hillforts are ‘enclosed sites’ but the problem is that there is a continuum of enclosures from small ditched farmsteads to massive monumental hillforts. On the Atlas website (https://hillforts.arch.ox.ac.uk) there is guidance on how to access a range of information about hillforts.
    [Show full text]
  • 2. a History of Dorset Hillfort Investigation
    2. A HISTORY OF DORSET HILLFORT INVESTIGATION John Gale Most of Dorset’s hillforts are to be found on the chalk downlands of the county but others are found on the limestone of Purbeck and in the clay vales to the extreme west of Dorset as well as those on the gravels of Poole basin. Of the 34 sites identified, more than a third have been the subject of some form of excavation but only four of these (Chalbury, Hod Hill, Maiden Castle and Pilsden Pen) could claim to have been significantly sampled. The problem is not that the sites are especially difficult to excavate but rather it is a question of scale. To understand such complex earthworks it would be preferable to excavate them completely but, generally speaking, large scale sampling should be sufficient. With hillforts, of course, the question is how large is large? This is a matter that can only be defined on a case by case basis, but certainly it is likely to be greater than 25% of the whole. Unfortunately, only two hillforts in England and Wales have achieved such attention: Crickley Hill in Gloucestershire (Dixon 1996) and Danebury in Hampshire (Cunliffe 1984), each with more than 50% of their interiors excavated. The most closely and extensively studied of the Dorset hillforts is Maiden Castle, which has been the subject of two major excavation campaigns, Tessa and Mortimer Wheeler in the 1930s (Wheeler 1943) and Niall Shaples in the mid-1980s (Sharples 1991). Neither of these excavations sampled more than a fraction of the enclosed area, in both cases no more than 1%, but the recovered evidence presents a detailed picture of life within the hillfort spanning almost the whole of the Iron Age.
    [Show full text]
  • Gabriela Blažková — Jan Frolík — Josef Matiášek the Golden Lane in the Light of the Archaeological and Historic Evidence
    Staletá Praha 34, 2/2018, 50-68 Gabriela Blažková — Jan Frolík — Josef Matiášek The Golden Lane in the light of the archaeological and historic evidence ANNOTATION According to recent research the historic and the archaeological evidence of the Golden Lane at Prague Castle complement each other rather than overlap. Archaeology documented in the Lane mainly concerns its earlier building development including the period prior Rudolf II. The social aspect of the inhabitants could not be inferred from the archaeological artefacts since the waste material was deposited outside the Lane, most probably in the Jelení (Deer) Ditch. The multi-layered street, as indicated by the pottery evaluation, was formed from other parts of the Prague Castle. The documentary evidence and the plans mainly from the 17th and 18th centuries allow following the development of still standing buildings as well as the demolished structures; they provide considerable detail concerning property relations and building modifications, and illustrate the social status of the inhabitants of the Lane. SUMMARY The Golden Lane is situated in the area of the late medieval Zwinger in the northeast corner of the Prague Castle, delimited by two battery towers: Daliborka on the east and Bílá (White) Tower on the west end of Prague Castle. The entrance into the Lane lies between the No. 11 and 30. Geomorphologically the Lane lies on the northern edge of the castle promontory, which slowly slopes down towards Opyš in the east and drops vertically down to the ravine of the Brusnice stream in the Jelení ditch on the north. The presumed line of the promontory ridge runs in the southern neighbourhood of the Lane.
    [Show full text]
  • Glossary of Terms
    www.nysmm.org Glossary of Terms Some definitions have links to images. ABATIS: Barricade of felled trees with their branches towards the attack and sharpened (primitive version of "barbed wire"). ARROW SLITS: Narrow openings in a wall through which defenders can fire arrows. (also called loopholes) ARTILLERY: An excellent GLOSSARY for Civil War era (and other) Artillery terminologies can be found at civilwarartillery.com/main.htm (Link will open new window.) BAILEY: The walled enclosure or the outer courtyard of a castle. (Ward, Parade) BANQUETTE: The step of earth within the parapet, sufficiently high to enable standing defenders to fire over the crest of the parapet with ease. BARBICAN: Outworks, especially in front of a gate. A heavily fortified gate or tower. BARTIZAN (BARTISAN): Scottish term, projecting corner turret. A small overhanging turret on a tower s battlement. BASTION: A projection from a fortification arranged to give a wider range of fire or to allow firing along the main walls. Usually at the intersection of two walls. BATTER: Inclined face of a wall (Talus). BATTERED: May be used to describe crenellations. BATTERY: A section of guns, a named part of the main fortifications or a separate outer works position (e.g.. North Battery, Water Battery). BATTLEMENTS: The notched top (crenellated parapet) of a defensive wall, with open spaces (crenels) for firing weapons. BEAKED PROJECTION: see EN BEC. BELVEDERE: A pavilion or raised turret. BLOCKHOUSE: Usually a two story wood building with an overhanging second floor and rifle loops and could also have cannon ports (embrasures). Some three story versions. Some with corner projections similar to bastions.
    [Show full text]
  • Piercebridge, County Durham Archaeological Evaluation and Assessment of Results
    Wessex Archaeology Piercebridge, County Durham Archaeological Evaluation and Assessment of Results Ref: 71506 June 2010 PIERCEBRIDGE, COUNTY DURHAM Archaeological Evaluation and Assessment of Results Prepared for: Videotext Communications Ltd 49 Goldhawk Road LONDON SW1 8QP by Wessex Archaeology Portway House Old Sarum Park SALISBURY Wiltshire SP4 6EB SAM Nos. 23638, 23771 Report reference: 71506.02 Path: X/projects/71506/post ex/TT Piercebridge report (ed LNM) June 2010 © Wessex Archaeology Limited 2010 all rights reserved Wessex Archaeology Limited is a Registered Charity No. 287786 Piercebridge, Co. Durham Archaeological Evaluation and Assessment of Results DISCLAIMER THE MATERIAL CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT WAS DESIGNED AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF A REPORT TO AN INDIVIDUAL CLIENT AND WAS PREPARED SOLELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THAT CLIENT. THE MATERIAL CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT DOES NOT NECESSARILY STAND ON ITS OWN AND IS NOT INTENDED TO NOR SHOULD IT BE RELIED UPON BY ANY THIRD PARTY. TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW WESSEX ARCHAEOLOGY WILL NOT BE LIABLE BY REASON OF BREACH OF CONTRACT NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE FOR ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE (WHETHER DIRECT INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL) OCCASIONED TO ANY PERSON ACTING OR OMITTING TO ACT OR REFRAINING FROM ACTING IN RELIANCE UPON THE MATERIAL CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT ARISING FROM OR CONNECTED WITH ANY ERROR OR OMISSION IN THE MATERIAL CONTAINED IN THE REPORT. LOSS OR DAMAGE AS REFERRED TO ABOVE SHALL BE DEEMED TO INCLUDE, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO, ANY LOSS OF PROFITS OR ANTICIPATED PROFITS DAMAGE TO REPUTATION OR GOODWILL LOSS OF BUSINESS OR ANTICIPATED BUSINESS DAMAGES COSTS EXPENSES INCURRED OR PAYABLE TO ANY THIRD PARTY (IN ALL CASES WHETHER DIRECT INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL) OR ANY OTHER DIRECT INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL LOSS OR DAMAGE QUALITY ASSURANCE SITE CODE 71506 ACCESSION CODE CLIENT CODE PLANNING APPLICATION REF.
    [Show full text]
  • Defensive Structures
    Defensive Structures Defensive Structures Bastion (Wikipedia) A bastion is a structure projecting outward from the main enclosure of a fortification, situated in both corners of a straight wall (termed curtain), with the shape of a sharp point, facilitating active defense against assaulting troops. It allows the defenders of the fort to cover adjacent bastions and curtains with defensive fire. The bastion was designed to offer a full range on which to attack oncoming troops. Previous fortifications were of little use within a certain range. The bastion solved this problem. By using cannon to cover the curtain side of the wall, the forward cannon could concentrate on oncoming targets. Types Various types of bastions have been used throughout history. Solid bastions are those that are filled up entirely, and have the ground even with the height of the rampart, without any empty space towards the center. Void or hollow bastions are those that have a rampart, or parapet, only around their flanks and faces, so that a void space is left towards the center. The ground is so low, that if the rampart is taken, no retrenchment can be made in the center, but what will lie under the fire of the besieged. A flat bastion is one built in the middle of a courtain, or enclosed court, when the court is too large to be defended by the bastions at its extremes. The term is also used of bastions built on a right line. A cut bastion is that which has a re-entering angle at the point. It was sometimes also called bastion with a tenaille.
    [Show full text]