<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?>
<!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.1 20151215//EN" "https://jats.nlm.nih.gov/archiving/1.1/JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article dtd-version="1.1" article-type="book-review">
    <front>
        <journal-meta>
            <journal-id>TMR</journal-id>
            <journal-title-group>
                <journal-title>The Medieval Review</journal-title>
            </journal-title-group>
            <issn pub-type="epub">1096-746X</issn>
            <publisher>
                <publisher-name>Indiana University</publisher-name>
            </publisher>
        </journal-meta>
        <article-meta>
            <article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">21.06.15</article-id>
            <title-group>
                <article-title>21.06.15, Gelichi/Olmo-Enciso, Mediterranean Landscapes in Post Antiquity</article-title>
            </title-group>
            <contrib-group>
                <contrib contrib-type="author">
                    <name>
                        <surname>Ulrike Roth</surname>
                        <given-names/>
                    </name>
                    <aff>University of Edinburgh</aff>
                    <address>
                        <email>u.roth@ed.ac.uk</email>
                    </address>
                </contrib>
            </contrib-group>
            <pub-date publication-format="epub" date-type="pub" iso-8601-date="2021">
                <year>2021</year>
            </pub-date>
            <product product-type="book">
                <person-group>
                    <name>
                        <surname>Gelichi, Sauro, and Lauro Olmo-Enciso, eds, in collaboration with Elisa Corrò and Manuel Castro-Priego</surname>
                        <given-names/>
                    </name>
                </person-group>
                <source>Mediterranean Landscapes in Post Antiquity: New frontiers and new perspectives</source>
                <year iso-8601-date="2019">2019</year>
                <publisher-loc>Oxford, UK</publisher-loc>
                <publisher-name>Archaeopress</publisher-name>
                <page-range>Pp. iv, 199</page-range>
                <price>$64.00 (hardback)</price>
                <isbn>978-1-78969-190-0 (hardback)</isbn>
            </product>
            <permissions>
                <copyright-statement>Copyright 2021 Trustees of Indiana University. Indiana University provides the information contained in this file for non-commercial, personal, or research use only. All other use, including but not limited to commercial or scholarly reproductions, redistribution, publication or transmission, whether by electronic means or otherwise, without prior written permission of the copyright holder is strictly prohibited.</copyright-statement>
            </permissions>
        </article-meta>
    </front>
    <body>
        <p>One of the great challenges in the archaeological exploration of past societies is the
            documentation of the lives of ordinary folks. Unlike the rich and powerful, those living
            at or near subsistence level do not normally produce the kind of conspicuous evidence
            that has been given centre stage in advancing our knowledge of the human past. The
            scholarly bias towards the notable is reflected in the widespread preference for the
            investigation of monumental settings, more often than not in urban contexts, through
            excavation. Somewhat ironically, and yet unsurprisingly, the countryside constitutes a
            microcosm of this broader approach. Recurrently, archaeological interest has been
            centred on the more obvious structures that puncture the rural landscape: in the
            geography under scrutiny, such structures range from the fora of Roman North Africa to
            the castle fortresses of the Nasrid kingdom in southern Spain. To challenge this
            monumental, often urban, and elite focus, its methods and resulting narratives, is the
            chief aim of <italic>Mediterranean Landscapes in Post Antiquity. New Frontiers and New
                Perspectives</italic>.</p>
        <p>The cited examples illustrate the temporal and spatial contours adopted in this volume.
            The <italic>terminus</italic>
            <italic>ante quem</italic> is (roughly) the end of what is commonly termed the medieval
            period, the <italic>terminus post quem</italic> the Roman period, even if individual
            chapters explore materials from prehistoric to early modern times, and several straddle
            vast chronologies: the <italic>longue durée</italic> is explicitly highlighted by
            several contributors, while the long, yet curtailed timeframe is equated by the editors
            in their one-page introduction with a necessary "chronological selection", posited
            against "global" or "total" archaeology (iii). The geographical remit--the title's
            "Mediterranean"--is loosely defined in this introduction as "the home of classicism"
            (iii); elsewhere, it appears to denote countries that actually border the Mediterranean
            Sea (64). The twelve chapters present effectively a topographical arc that captures
            primarily landscapes located around the pond's northern sweep, moving east to west. </p>
        <p>The journey begins in Greece, medieval and after (delineated by earlier, prehistoric and
            Graeco-Roman reminiscences: Bintliff, 1-6), before moving via the area that became known
            in late antiquity as the Diocese of Dacia in the central Balkans (and with a focus on
            early medieval fortifications, such as the Fortress of Ras: Ivanišević, Bugarski, 7-17),
            to northeastern Italy--or more precisely the Venetian lagoon and the particular fate of
            the religious settlement of Sant'Ilario in the later medieval period (Corrò, Moine,
            Primon, 18-37). From there, the itinerary takes a southern turn, first to the lower
            Bolognese plain (i.e. the semicircle that extends c. 30 km east, north and west from the
            city: Librenti, 38-63), and its diverse settlements and other structures in the late
            medieval and early modern period, before heading southwest to, nominally, "Emptyscapes",
            in the western parts of southern Tuscany and northern Lazio (concentrated on stretches
            near Roselle in the north and Veio in the south: Campana, 64-83). Leaving Italy behind,
            the next six stops are located in Spain, covering different (and some overlapping)
            areas, north to south. The Ebro Valley brings into sight the agrarian landscape around
            La Noguera, in the Rioja region, both Roman and medieval, from before and after the
            arrival of Christianity (López de Calle, Tudanca, Peña-Chocarro, Pérez Jordà,
            Moreno-García, 84-103). In a slight diversion from the geographic arc's anti-clockwise
            advance, central Iberia and the southern Castilian plateau come next, with the agrarian
            terraces around Visigothic Recópolis in focus (Olmo-Enciso, Castro Priego, Ruiz Zapata,
            Gil García, Galindo Pellicena, Checa-Herráiz, de la Torre-Verdejo, 104-128), before
            northwestern Iberia gets a further look-in (Quirós Castillo, Vigil-Escalera Guirado,
            129-144), from the earliest medieval villages in Galicia at A Pousada (near Santiago de
            Compostela) to the contemporaneous seventh-century church foundations at such prominent
            places as Valcamino and La Solana (near Madrid). Halfway to the coast towards Byzantine
            Carthago Spartaria, the surburban and rural landscape of Visigothic Eio, the later
            Islamic Madinat Iyyuh--modern El Tolmo de Minateda--offers a multi-dimensional view of
            the early medieval landscape of southeastern Spain (Sarabia Bautista, Gutiérrez Lloret,
            Amorós Ruiz, 145-162), before the Iberian exploration ends in Granada, in two acts:
            first, pastures and meadows, drove roads and waterways, salt marshes and salt lakes in
            the Kingdom of Granada open a window on the late medieval landscape (Malpica Cuello,
            Villar Mañas, García García, García-Contreras Ruiz, 163-173); second, the
            Frailes-Velillos Valley, situated in Granada's mountainous Northwest, documents diverse
            human-landscape-interactions, from prehistoric rock shelters and caves via Roman
            imperial villas and late medieval Nasrid fortresses to zones of intensive, irrigated
            agriculture along the riverbanks in the pre-modern period, following the Castilian
            conquest in 1486 (García Porras, Mattei, Alonso Valladares, 174-184). The journey's
            terminus is reached across the sea in Morocco with the medieval western Maghreb,
            affording the only glimpse south of the pond in this volume, through the complex
            irrigated landscape supplying the agricultural hinterland of the city of Aġmāt Ūrīka in
            the high medieval period (Cressier, González Villaescusa, 185-199). Fascinating as these
            snapshots are individually, fuller (editorial and cross-chapter) engagement with, and
            explication of, the benefits of the championed temporal and spatial frames ("Post
            Antiquity" and "Mediterranean") would have substantiated their adoption. </p>
        <p>Although urban settlements, like Aġmāt, impress themselves on some of the contributions,
            a concentration on rural areas is patent throughout, presenting diverse dimensions of
            human interaction with the landscape across a long millennium. The frustration over the
            countryside's marginalisation in some archaeological quarters, and the continued
            preference given to monumental structures, besides urban spaces, is palpable in several
            chapters. For example, López de Calle and colleagues observe that their chosen landscape
            "is part of what in Spanish is called 'el campo' (the countryside), a rather vague term
            that has attracted little research attention in Iberia due not only to prejudices but
            also to the little prospect to produce information" (86). In his study of the late
            medieval and early modern Bolognese plain, Librenti highlights "the exceptional cases in
            which regions paid commendable attention to abandoned villages"; after all, "(t)he
            question of the population in scattered rural buildings, despite being among the most
            characteristic features of rural settlements in the plain, has remained virtually
            ignored" (38). Tensions between the interests of institutions, organisations and funders
            on the one hand vis-à-vis what one author calls "a select band of forward-looking
            archaeologists and landscape investigators" (81) on the other are cited, too, in
            commenting on the demotion of "el campo" and landscape archaeology to the benefit of
            "the study of single sites defined mainly in monumental terms" (Quirós Castillo,
            Vigil-Escalera Guirado, 130). There is however no party-line here regarding a definition
            of landscape archaeology: notwithstanding the primary concern with non-urban space, the
            editors advocate "a very broad meaning", one that permits the inclusion of urban
            settlements in the concept of "landscape", while simultaneously emphasising "the need to
            qualify the concept of 'site' (and, conversely, that of 'off-site')" (iii). </p>
        <p>This need is addressed variously in the volume. Some contributors make straightforward
            and approving use of both term and concept of "site", in a traditional sense: inter
            alia, Bintliff notes appreciatively that in his work on mainland Greece, "(t)he study of
            deserted Post-Medieval rural sites led to the possibility of mapping rural society" (3);
            López de Calle and colleagues happily refer to La Noguera as "a multi-period site" (86);
            Sarabia Bautista and colleagues productively employ the information from the excavations
            at "certain sites" around El Tolmo (145); and the research of García Porras and
            colleagues "has essentially focused on two sites" (174: castle and village, and
            necropolis). Others avoid the term (and concept) almost religiously: the ring-ditches
            discovered by Campana near Roselle through LiDAR-survey emerge, through comparison with
            the similar (and well-excavated and intensely studied) structures in nearby Cerveteri,
            as "a major and previously unsuspected funerary <italic>landscape</italic>"; Campana
            adds in conclusion that "neither micro-morphological evidence nor field-walking
            survey...presented any interpretable evidence of this kind of...long-lasting funerary
                <italic>landscape</italic>" (72-3, emphases added; cf. 74, note 27). In his project
            description, Campana advocates explicitly that the research goal "be less about 'sites'
            than about a populated landscape in the social, economic, and environmental context,"
            noting furthermore the importance of finding "a new balance...between site and off-site
            archaeology" (66). It is indeed gratifying to see that here, as elsewhere, new
            technologies add significantly to our knowledge of what lies below the ground and, in
            consequence, of the human past. Notably though, Campana's chosen landscapes for remote
            sensing and related analyses stand in direct (locational) relation to known, and indeed
            major sites--most obviously Etruscan, Roman and medieval Rusellae, and Etruscan and
            Roman Veii: the selected transects are hardly isolated patches. Populating these spaces
            linguistically with "landscapes" in place of "sites" does not in itself make the
            identified remains "off-site"--unless a "site" is to be defined in strict relation to
            excavation. For me, it is precisely the discovery of several new structures--such as the
            likely Etruscan cemetery site, although still underground and not yet further
            explored--that constitute the most productive results from the "Emptyscapes"-project. </p>
        <p>Exploring such discoveries further through forensic excavation must surely be one (albeit
            not only) goal. Indeed--and notwithstanding the uphill challenge that landscape
            archaeology still faces in some quarters--invasive archaeology has its place.
            Repeatedly, the volume's contributors point to the need for and benefit of excavation
            (e.g. 90, 168, 197). Thus, to explain early medieval (re)occupation patterns, Ivanišević
            and Bugarski "focus on Gradina...as this site has been excavated for three decades" (9),
            while for A Pousada, Quirós Castillo and Vigil-Escalera Guirado deplore that "(t)he
            limited extent of the excavation has hampered an in depth characterization of the site"
            (136); asking whether lime exploitation occurred in early medieval Loma Lencina, near El
            Tolmo, Sarabia Bautista and colleagues conclude that "without an excavation of the site,
            it is difficult to confirm whether it already existed during that period" (148, with
            151); and exploring the question of social status and organisation that lurk behind the
            medieval Tuscan landscape, Campana comments that "the answer...could only come from
            excavation" (78). Without excavation, clarity on some of the fundamental aspects of
            human interaction with the landscape cannot be reached. </p>
        <p>Survey, too, holds its place--despite the editor's critical write-up (iii): praising the
            new technologies, geo-archaeological and paleo-environmental techniques, Gelichi and
            Olmo-Enciso state that these were essential "to overcome the impasse following the great
            era of the 'surveys'; an era which, as is known, has characterized much of the best
            landscape archeology (!) of the 70s, 80s and 90s"; they link this era furthermore to
            "the 'illusions' of processualism," and the reconstruction of "the spatial arrangement
            of settlements in large areas and over a long period." Nevertheless, the recent surveys
            by Malpica Cuello and colleagues in late medieval Granada significantly enriched their
            documentation of the local economy devoted to animal husbandry and salt production
            (164), while the surveys by Cressier and Villaescusa around Aġmāt helped to document the
            irrigation system (188); Sarabia Bautista and colleagues, too, draw on recent surveys to
            understand more fully the terraced landscape around Visigothic Loma Eugenia (151); and
            the chapter by Librenti describes, in his own words, "an archaeological survey of the
            rural population and the impact of transformations that it underwent," relying moreover
            on "a re-elaboration of the data provided by archaeological excavations and surveys of
            the Bolognese plain over the past thirty years" (38). Whatever the limitations of more
            traditional approaches to human interaction with the world around us, the new
            technologies that enabled a chunk of the work presented in this volume come with
            shortcomings too: LiDAR and Co. are not equipped to answer the deeper questions by
            themselves; they are, ultimately, means to an end, best used in targeted combination
            with other tools, despite the repeated and somehow redundant warm appreciation that
            these technologies attract in several chapters (regularly combined with, to my mind,
            unproductive concern with description of approach and perspective).</p>
        <p>Besides their own deep questions that the "middle" ages broach (so explicitly Librenti:
            59; also Quirós Castillo, Vigil-Escalera Guirado: 130), given the volume's chronological
            brief, the watersheds on either side of this period raise major issues alone. Take the
            thorny question of the so-called transition from the ancient to the medieval world.
            Several chapters explain their materials in contradistinction to a postulated Roman
            model--one that is as static as antiquated. Observing that "the collapse of the Late
            Roman system in the 5th century AD was a determinant event for the Mediterranean and
            European West," which "entailed a full transformation of the social models and...their
            projection onto the landscape," Olmo-Enciso and colleagues contend that "the new Iberian
            landscape...is a direct reflection of the development of the new Early Medieval
            society," and especially of "the emergence of a new productive strategy and settlement
            pattern which replaced the <italic>villae</italic>-based system that predominated during
            the Roman period" (105; and, e.g., 132-133, 146, 158). Fair enough. But changes in
            productive strategies and settlement patterns occurred also <italic>within</italic> the
            Roman period; and seeming scarcity of <italic>villae</italic> never removes the
            "Roman"-label <italic>in</italic>the Roman period--such as at Ligurian Luni. There is a
            further methodological problem: having criticised the city/monument/elite focus of
            classical archaeology, it is unclear how the products of <italic>this</italic> classical
            archaeology can constitute suitable comparanda, rather than the stilts for lop-sided
            comparison with landscape archaeology: by definition, the results cast an (unreliable)
            image of fundamental change and transformation. What if the point of comparison were
            with the suspected Roman republican and imperial increase in villages in, e.g., Italy's
            Cecina valley? And what if we fully acknowledged that there is no essential link between
            (archaeological) form and (socio-economic) content? Why, for instance, can slaves not
            live in villages (<italic>as</italic> slaves, e.g. in northwestern Iberia: 134; cf. the
            early-modern Foscari <italic>villa</italic>--without slaves (?): 34)? Citing Wickham's
            magisterial attempt at <italic>Framing the Early Middle Ages</italic>that populates the
            post-Roman countryside with villages and (free) peasants cannot replace the analytical
            contextualisation and interpretation of one's own materials. <italic>Mutatis
                mutandis</italic>, an "economic system based on the extraction of surplus by the
            elite"(109), suggested by Olmo-Enciso and colleagues for Navalahija and Navalvillar, is
            well familiar to the Romanist, as are the kinds of social hierarchies evident at El
            Tolmo (where, moreover, Roman and post-Roman sites overlap): the socio-economic changes
            are postulated, not remotely sensed (152 and 158-9; see also 169 for Granada, and 198
            for Aġmāt). More broadly, despite hopes to excavate 'the medieval peasant' (<italic>vel.
                sim</italic>; e.g. 86, 108; 130-8), the people (and social structures generally) are
            distant from the featured landscapes--a corollary of non-invasive approaches. The role
            of religion, although recurrently referenced, remains similarly afloat. Partly, this is
            due to the preliminary nature of several results (openly noted at, e.g., 119 and 147),
            and the extraordinary difficulty of making sense of the "confused heap of disparate
            data" (59) that the sources often constitute. But there is also little sign of engaging
            with each other's work, despite the original conference session that generated the
            volume, or to think the bigger issues through together. The presented materials, arising
            from impressive and important work, clearly speak to those issues, and deserve to be
            taken places.</p>
    </body>
</article>