1.2.1 The Study of fortification of Ancient Western World: Challenges, Questions and Methods.
The academic research of fortification is relatively young in compassion with its focused objects, those grand monuments comprised with curtains, towers and other defensive structures. As for the reason of such delay since archeology in the 19th century had excavated many famous ancient city ruins, the huge size that cannot be fully documented by modern methods like GPS, aerial photography and photogrammetry.
However, as the technological approaches have become more prevalent and matured in the 21st century, the study of fortification across the world began to prosper.
Nevertheless, some basic difficulties still remain. As pointed out by Silke Müth (2015), for the study of giant fortification, researchers must strike an appropriate balance between accuracy of the research conducted and the duration of the project in relation to the goals being pursued. The detailed survey of all possible specimens in the research scope is impossible, neither was all matters of one individual case. He suggested that despite of archangelical methods, architectural and historical analysis should also be adopted, to make the fragmented image readable.
Apart from the acquisition of basic data, the most knotting problem lies in the difficulty of chronology. Y Garlan (1982), well-known for his work on Greek Fortification, used to remark that chronology of many circuits is unknown or uncertain.
Many cities were used for a relatively long time, with numerous repairs and even total reconstruction. Traces of these construction are not as prominent as potteries and handicrafts with vivid style of period by which archaeologists may know the age of the stratum where they were buried. To accurately know the date of the establishment for a specific fortification without detailed historical records is almost impossible for most
not be restored, any analysis about change and development would not be persuasive.
Such difficulty is a consensus for all researchers dealing with not only a fortress but also other kinds of human settlements in use.
The two problems of what and when can only be solved with a comprehensive employment of all existed methods through which new approaches suitable for a specific research project may be created (S. Müth et al., 2015).
The general consciousness of questions for fortification research formed in an accumulation of individual site studies. Among the existing research of all the regions and periods, those on Hellenistic fortification rank the first (S. C. Bakhuizen, 1994; V.
D. Hanson, 1999). The competitiveness between the Greek city states had urged the engineers of that time constantly refine their military works. Thus, the Greek relics had revealed great variety and creativity. The representative research had been done by E.
W. Marsden (1969), F. Winter (1971), and Y. Garlan (1974), A.W. Lawrence (1979), J.-P. Adam (1982). The most significant change during the period was the obsolete of the tactic that defenders only hide themselves behind the higher and thicker wall. As shown in the case of Syracuse, the adoption of many posterns could deliver soldiers outwards to counterattack the enemies, destroying their heavy siege machines. The concept of static/passive defence against elastic/active defence set by McNicoll, A. W.
(1986) may best explain such change.
In Valbonne,1982, an important symposium related to the Greek city walls was held during which several classic questions were prepared for the participants, and the last two can be seen as the ultimate problem for fortification research of the 20th century:
How did the new technology of offensive, stone-throwing catapult artillery affect cities and their fortification system? What about defensive artillery and its effect on fortification architecture?
The questions are also a projection of the later competitive process between the attackers and the defenders in the age of black powder back to the archaic times. The change of a fortress after the invention of canons was known revolutionary that people cannot stop asking what about those changes happened long ago.
For the successive Roman Empire, the fundamental studies on its fortification could not match those for the Greek. After the creation of the Empire, intensive wars between
cities ended and the fortress of roman legionary became the dominant landscape within the vast territory. These fortresses are of greater uniformity in comparison to the Greek fortification (Toy. S., 2006). The plan and structures of a roman castra was well interpreted in the work by Petrikovits, H. (1975). However, due to the broad territory and lasting lifetime of Roman Empire, an overall study on its fortification is almost impossible (V. D. Hanson, 1999). As Rob Collins and Meike Weber (2015) reviewed, some summary overviews with a chronological and geographical focus such like studies by Reddé et al. (2006), Mackensen (1999), and von Petrikovits (1971) may merely consolidate the Empire’s military tactics and activities. The period was also featured with territorial defense represented by border forts and frontier wall. Thus, the related research has to deal with the relationship between forts that constituted to a total defence system. The work by Johnson, J. S. (1976) for the west Empire in late term and by Gudea, N. (1979) for Dacia province were such studies. As Rebuffat, R. (1986) pointed out, the scarcity of well-dated sites, and the lack of poliorcetical commentary in archaeological publications is another difficulty. Nevertheless, Rebuffat, R. had some enlightening thinking, as reviewed by Simon. C. Bakhuizen (1994), such as the fortification of Roman Empire had more meaning on display of imperial or local proudness, and more attentions should be paid to the political context, the local circumstances and the cultural heritage. That may imply the fact that the construction of a fortification in Roman period had more complicated impetus than in the Greek time.
After all, the war between “civilized” groups of people had ended and the main opponents for the world empire are “barbarians” who can hardly launch a siege with heavy weaponry.
Another point about the Roman world is the differentiation of civilian and military settlements for its conquered territory. Lenoir, M. (1986) investigated the relations between fortified Roman camps and the planned, fortified towns and cities of the ancient world. As reviewed by Simon. C. Bakhuizen (1994), Lenoir wonders whether in Roman city planning the architects were inspired by military models. Obviously, under the regime of an empire, the domain of fortification study enlarged. Simon. C.
Bakhuizen also proposed that the subject of defence and fortification doses not stop at cites. There exist a great many field forts, border defences, and even rural defences which should be paid with more attention.
After the milestone conference on ancient fortification held in Valbonne, 1982, the successive one in Ottawa, 1988 seems less inspiring. Most papers deal, in essence or in passing, with the problem of dating ruins (Van Wees, H. ,1994). The analysis of defense system of Megarid by Van de Maele, inevitably faced with the questioning in chronology. Neither did later conferences in Istanbul (1993) and Madrid (2003) “led to a new understanding of ancient fortifications as complex results and mirrors of the interaction between the natural environment and social, political and cultural systems”, commented by S. Müth et al. (2015)
Fortification research in the new century has showed a broader interest on the interaction between the monument and its contexts while previous questions still bothered the researchers. In 2008, a research network concentrated on fortifications in the Eastern Mediterranean was established at the Orient Department of the DAI (German Archaeological Institute) in berlin. In its publication entitled Ancient Fortifications: A Compendium of Theory and Practice (S. Müth et al., 2015), some basic questions were raised as the methodology of dating fortifications, the question of building experiences, the character and emphasis of functions beyond mere defence, the interaction between the historical context and the appearance and functions of a fortification, the relationship between single fortification and greater regional defense systems and its effect on the regional fortification technology. These marked a new turning point of fortification research.
Despite of excavation reports which served as the main resource of materials, researchers of ancient fortification also draw on literal records like inscriptions and documents. Military writings, though very few survived until today, bring the most dependable information. The most mentioned one, is composed by Philo of Byzantium, whose Paraskeuastika and Poliorketika (Garlan 1974; Lawrence 1979) constitute a comprehensive guide to defending and attacking a Hellenistic city. The Paraskeuastika concerns the design, layout, and construction of walls, towers, battlements, and outworks, as well as the organization of manpower and provisions; the Poliorketika considers engineering, equipment, and tactics used by besieger and besieged. Another crucial literature is The Ten Books on Architecture by Vitruvius, who mentioned some principles of building a fortified town. To better use of these text materials is also a critical problem of methodology.
To sum, the complicated situations of different locations and times makes the fortification research a comprehensive process, one should be at least equipped with the knowledge of archaeology, architecture, urban planning and history while keep sensitive to the technological progress.
1.2.2 The Study of fortification of Ancient China: Tradition and Status
Among all the human civilizations, the Chinese is well-known for its rich preservations of ancient relics and texts. The study of the classics and the history had keeping a subjective position in the Chinese traditional academy while knowledge of science, engineering, and even art never become the mainstream. Therefore, the non-literature materials were only taken as proofs to perfect and supply the literal texts.
Records on science and technology were seldom considered as classics, except for when they were compiled together with other political and philosophy issues like in Chou Li (周禮) and Mo-tsu. Thus, many texts of ancient experiences before middle ages failed to survive the periodical dynastic changes that commonly accompanied by severe wars.
Thanks to the prosperity of printing techniques in the Sung Dynasty, the costs of produce books decrease to a degree that some ancient experiences and newly developed technologies were able to be recorded and spread. For example, the fortification knowledge of and before Sung Dynasty can be found in Wu Ching Tsung Yao, as have introduced in the 1.1.2. Moreover, in the famous book on architectural construction, Ying Tsao Fa Shih (營造法式), a specific part named Hao Chai Chih Tu (壕寨制度) (the layout of moat and fortress) was included, giving construction provisions for city wall and its base. Both books were compiled by the order from the emperors.
The subordinate condition of issues other than classics and histories did not change much until the beginning of the 20th century. Material culture of ancient China drew more attentions from the young generations who had both traditional and western education backgrounds. In the heatwave of modern nation creation across the world, the ancient Chinese empire began a long-term and painful transformation. During the time, many western concepts entitled a prefix of “Chinese” came into being such like Chinese history, philosophy, art, science and technology. Architecture was generally within the domain of art which in part relate to engineering. As well-known, the modern
of Chinese Architecture in the 1930s. Among its members, we can see a string of shinning names like Liang Ssu-ch’eng, Lin Hui-yin and Liu Tun-chen. They had established a method that combines the practical research and literature research. In his masterpiece entitled A Pictorial History of Chinese Architecture, Liang compared the two technological books, Ying Tsao Fa Shih and Kung-pu Kung-ch'eng Zuò-fa Tse Li (工部工程做法則例), to the grammar books of Chinese ancient architecture. That is to say, the concept of the latter had taken the dominant position rather than the proofs to the texts. In his accurate architectural illustrations to the two books, we may see the drawings of the fortification layout with full information in dimensions and short explanations (Fig.1-12).
Due to the heavy task of building up a history of Chinese architecture that concentrates in the evolvement of wooden structure, issues on fortification and urban planning only account of very little in the studies of Society for the Study of Chinese Architecture. Different from the investigation and research on architecture which lay emphasis on the building technology, later attention to city planning mainly focused on the evolvement of city plan and institution rather than the fortification. The outstanding researchers include Kuo Hu-sheng, Ho Yeh-chü as well as historians like Yang Kuan.
Their trying of restore a history of Chinese ancient cities centered on those outstanding examples like imperial capitals. In such a research pattern, the arrangement of different functioned architectural complex such as palaces, temples of the ancestors, and markets on the plan is the main concern. The methodology dates back to the traditional historical geography of Chinese academy. Another feature of these studies is that the examples distributed dispersedly both in time and space dimensions. Generally, there were not enough specimens from the same place and period for comparison.
The fortification as an aspect of urban study only drew greater attention with the development of archaeology by which more and more relics of the ancient cities were found and explored. Early poliorcetics: The Mohists to the Sung by Robin D. S. Yates (1994), in the Vol.6 of Science and Civilisation in China, edited by Joseph Needham, used considerable archaeological, historical materials to draw an outline of the development of fortification from the dawn of Chinese civilisation to its most refined period, Sung Dynasty. He based his research to an extent on the text of Mo T’su and Wu Ching Tsung Yao and found as much as possible the proofs from archeological findings. Yet the difficulty Yates faced with is the separation of physical space and the
independent text. Both Mo T’su and Wu Ching Tsung Yao are a pile of experiences accumulated during long term of practice in siege and defence, which are not in conformity with any specific examples. Meanwhile, the regional difference in the vast territory of China was not taken into consideration.
Military researchers in China also tried to fulfill the task of composing a general history of Chinese fortification. The book entitled Chung Kuo Chu Ch’eng Shih (中國 築城史) (the history of city construction of China) by Shi et al (1999) was such an exploration. It collected war cases and literature of piliorcetics though all dynasties of China, under a somewhat presumed pattern that fortification kept improving under the growing pressure of siegecract. However, the materials seem not support the pattern very well. Yet it was very few try of adopting a technological viewpoint.
Referring to the building material and related construction technology, archaeologists made great contributions dealing with rammed earth.
The study of one specific element in the fortification is a new tendency. Chia Ting Li and Chen Wei (2010) explored the evolvement of parapets in the fortification of China. The recent excavation of Shi-mao (石峁) relics in Shenxi Province, has revealed many astonishing facts in the late Neolithic age, including the adoption of barbicans and towers. Sun Chou-yung and Shao Ching had published the related results and research on Cultural Relics.
Figure 1-12 Illustration of the Layout of Moat and Fortress from Ying Tsao Fa Shih, by Liang