The different visual and acoustic beacon signalling systems presented in this volume—from broad-scale overviews to more detailed discussions of specific systems—demonstrate similarities but also differences across time and space. We find that through beacon systems we can study societies on different scales to gain insights into inter-regional systemic contexts, past socio-military strategies and landscape organisation, right down to specific defensive sites and local tactics. This conclusion will summarise key observations and discuss current understudied topics, with the aim of identifying future agendas and approaches.
As an alternative to the methods of non-verbal long-distance communication—especially signalling beacons—discussed in this book, other forms of messaging, such as courier systems on both foot and horse, bird carrier and homing pigeons, or attached to projectiles, have certain obvious advantages. Written correspondence can be more lengthy, complex and nuanced than the relatively simple messages sent by beacons. Provided they were not intercepted, such messages could convey private information, and for this reason alone they were used for a wider range of purposes, from personal correspondence to diplomacy and governance, or describing trade and commercial opportunities, as well as for military purposes. A case in point, the survival of hand-delivered letters, such as those of Cicero, Fronto, and Pliny the Younger, provide some of the most detailed insights into Roman society available to scholarship.1 In this respect, the contrast to the visual and acoustic messages discussed by the contributors in this volume could not be starker. While the signified concept of beacon signalling could vary depending on the predetermined message, from identifying the location of people, warning of danger, or announcing simple news,2 the information conveyed was far less sophisticated.
Even when individual beacons are difficult to identify in the landscape, the concept of non-verbal long-distance communication offers many possibilities for fruitful study from an archaeological perspective. As the cumulative evidence presented in this book has shown, communications and signalling have many similarities in time and space, meaning that certain phenomena, such as the use of landscapes, the ways strategic decisions were made, how ‘watching’ and guarding was conducted, or how people prepared against conflict, have parallels across the millennia. Even though all the case-studies here presented are historically contingent, it has been one of the aims of this book to explore some of the wider possibilities offered by the study of beacons from an archaeological point of view.
1 The Systemic Context
In a very tangible sense beacons can be connected to wider systemic issues, such as territoriality and border formation, the operations of states and empires,
Within these large political entities, beacons can also be connected to smaller, nested areas, defined by those groups co-operating for common defence, as is seen in examples described by Brookes (England), Lemm, and Iversen (both Scandinavia). In the earlier Norwegian system described by Ødegaard, people within these smaller administrative territories were responsible for manning warships, and providing men and equipment for the common defence. Similarly, Johnson’s account of 17th century Isle of Man, showed how each parish came under the charge of a captain responsible for mustering and leading the militia in support of the watch.
In this way, several authors in this book have looked beyond signalling to consider the broader physical and human landscapes of civil defence, of which beacons were just one part. It is an obvious observation to make, but the success of beacon signalling to counter threats depended upon wider infrastructure, systems of mobilisation and communications. For example, Iversen shows how the system of late medieval Norway depended on riders on horseback and an infrastructure of farms with the responsibility for keeping horses, found at intervals in the landscape. It follows that control over beacon networks, infrastructure and military and civilian responses, was one dimension of wider controls over people, and therefore potentially a crucial element in power strategies and state formation processes. The inverse of top-down processes shows beacons also to be a way in which different civil societies responded to threats and developed resistance strategies from available resources and choices, and in this way are an expression of human preference and complex decision-making at a local scale.4
Various papers connect signalling to state control or the ability of leaders to wield more wide-ranging power, and this is often connected to processes of
More nuanced, William argues that Roman signalling systems were less functional against invasions than they were for controlling illegal border crossings by smaller groups, whether raiding bands or merchants reluctant to pay a customs duty. At the same time, they functioned as a form of border control, where those living close by or traveling within the borderland felt the presence of a Roman military that could surveil and challenge whoever violated those borders. This aspect is also stressed by McMahons’s interpretation of newly fortified sites in 11th century Byzantine northern Apulia, which functioned more to exert territorial control rather than long-distance communication. These studies give insights into the power of surveillance; how the knowledge of being watched can promote psychological fears and control the behaviour of those surveilled.5 In this way, beacons and fortifications conceivably helped to shape societal responses to fear, both enhancing resilience and enabling political control.
In many of these examples, beacon sites were placed at the boundaries of territorial control, and as such their study can contribute new insights into the wider scholarship of boundaries.6 Such studies have argued that boundaries retain a wealth of information that can be deciphered to throw light on how decisions were made, how groups defined themselves, and how supra-local power intersected with local agencies. They express on the one hand, how territorial power might be expressed and experienced in localities, while on the other, show the degrees to which people responded to and acted upon this power. Simply put, the manning and operation of a single beacon has only a limited capacity—what these systems demonstrate is a recognition of, and collective responsibility for, a supra-regional territory. In beacon systems we have evidence for the fact that powers could rely on local acquiescence and
It is worth underlining the fact that there is no consensus on the limits of signalling communication and what ancient and medieval societies were capable of doing. Views on the speed and range of a beacon signal varies considerably in the literature, as the contributions in this volume also attest; and the extents of networks comprising systems are similarly much debated.7 As a case-in-point: even when relying on the same sources, examples from this book present somewhat different opinions—ranging between more maximalist and more minimalist positions—on the capabilities of Roman signalling. Such debates about the proficiency of beacons systems underscore the need for more studies deploying new and other perspectives and methods. The same call extends to questions about the effects of signalling systems on local communities, those relating to manning and resources, as well as efficiencies of beacons for warning—all themes that so far are somewhat underdeveloped in scholarship. We would advocate to extend such research into studies on the societal responses to threat and warfare, especially local communities’ contributions to these systems and what this meant for collective identity. As many papers in this book have shown, the resources used for organising, manning and operationalising these systems could be substantial, so their study holds great potential for understanding the military, economic and social capacity of past societies.
While most of this discussion has concerned itself with military signalling, beacons could of course, also be used for civilian communication. Examples from around the world attest to their use for a variety of functions: as summons to meetings and rituals; to schedule or notify of ceremonial activities; in trade and hunting activities; or even in farming (e.g. by preventing crop predation by animals, or signalling when it was time to plant crops).8 Comparisons and
Such observations reiterate the need to consider the signification of beacons, as well as the intended recipients of the messages sent. Did different beacons signal different messages, and what were the predetermined messages sent? What knowledge was required to decipher messages and who held that knowledge?9 At some Chinese beacon sites, women and families are reported,10 suggesting these sites might not have been directly on the front lines. In other instances, the presence of women might suggest they were indeed part of conflict situations.11 In Viking Age Scandinavia, women’s role in the equipping of warships has been a topic of important recent scholarship.12 Conceivably, studies exploring the involvement of different groups of people in other aspects of civil defence—such as signalling—has similar potential.
2 Getting ‘Inside’ Events
For all their simplicity, these signalling systems give us much information on military decision making. They show where particular threats were anticipated
All studies are grounded in landscape—looking at the positions and functions of these sites in relationship to surrounding features like rivers, mountains, embayments, inlets, and fjords, as well as political and economic structures like boundaries, settlements and military institutions. The local context of beacons is necessary for understanding, not only why these sites were located where they were, but also how they related to social and military situations in the past. High vantage points like mountain peaks and coastal cliffs could of course provide ideal locations for beacons, ensuring clear lines of sight, but in many of the analyses described here there is a more subtle and strategic placement of these structures, for example, affording views in particular directions, or spaced in such a way to facilitate efficient communication relays. As such, beacon studies can reveal the sophistication of past communications networks, as well as the operational skills of (pre)historic people in building alliances and co-operation between people, often across different landscapes and regions at significant scale.13
Examples highlight past strategic decision making, providing a rare insight into the minds of leaders and generals who are almost invisible through other sources. Importantly, in most of the communication strategies discussed here, these devices served to gain an advantage in warfare, and in this regard, they were part of strategic military thinking that weighed up time and threat, military capability and the very nature of combat. They show how signalling could be pivotal to mobilising and manoeuvring forces, and attest to
It is doubtful that any of the authors contributing to this volume would claim to be experts in military strategy, and in this respect more could be done to analyse these systems from the perspective of the armchair general. How might the tactical or operational efficiency of these systems be improved? Where, from a military perspective, are there weaknesses in these systems, and what were the challenges to implementing them efficiently? Are there situations where signalling could have been valuable but was not deployed? These are questions we often do not have the answers to but would welcome the insights from military planners for whom these are common considerations.
Nor can we readily address the degree to which such generals relied on other forms of intelligence to guide their actions. Our focus throughout this book has been on overt messaging, but in reality, success in warfare requires as much strategic information of intended operations as can be gathered.14 No doubt diplomacy and espionage also played an important role in determining strategy, not least when these might lead to less-violent outcomes.
Of course, diplomatic messaging and spying represents quite different communication mechanisms to the simple uses of beacons, in that it was usually secret. Spies might gather information from within a rival’s realm, or work in secret to follow enemies or watch specific people, groups, or sites. It is unsurprising in this regard that, when they are recorded, spies and diplomats are often found either at the borders, as described by Earley-Spadoni, or near the centres of rival power where they might best gather the necessary tactical information.15 To be most effective such secret information needs to be sent home in a constant stream, either directly by agents themselves or via some
Even without knowing the degrees to which non-verbal messages were supplemented by other forms of communication, this book challenges the notion that we can’t get into the minds of people in the past without textual sources. In their various studies all the contributors in this volume actively think about the strategic decision making of past actors to gain an understanding of how such people understood their specific historically contingent military-political circumstances. In so doing, unlike many other forms of archaeological interpretation, which concern themselves largely with general systemic themes—the rise and collapse of states, interregional connections, and so forth—these sites provide insights to specific historical intentionality. They provoke us, in other words, to actively consider what Collingwood describes, as the ‘inside’ of events: “that in it which can only be described in terms of thought”.18 Some of the contributions come closer to Collingwood’s definition than others, particularly when considering sites in the context of specific events, for example the discussion by Ravn and Juel on Danish Erritsø’s strategic importance, possibly responding to events like the Frankish invasion of 815, Lemm’s discussion of a defensive system for the protection of the Viking Age trading town of Hedeby, Brookes study of events in 10th century England and Elbl’s descriptions of systems in the Strait of Gibraltar area, linking them to chronicled events between c.1350 to c.1690. These are all fine-grained temporalities in which different types of warfare are conducted, such as battles, static defences, sea watch, and which include the uses of beacons in each system.
These same fine-grained temporalities also demonstrate how beacon systems might evolve over time. Elbl shows how the system emerged from overlapping local warning systems rather than originating as a cohesive network. Beacon systems could also adapt to changing threats, settlement patterns, and population shifts, as they do in Iversen’s account of changing threats encountered during the Nordic Seven Years’ War (1563–70). Beacon systems changed in England (Brookes) and the Isle of Man (Johnson) in response to viking raids and threats. Johnson also gives examples of how the beacon system changed
This latter observation stresses that topography, as well as weather, can limit how a system might change. Bakke describes how before the Romans demanded the Greek city-states demolish their fortifications in 136 B.C, despite shifting alliances and military regimes, many of the watchtowers continued to be in use for over three hundred years. The examples, and many others besides those presented in this book, emphasise how certain places in the landscape have an important strategic role that is unchanging throughout millennia.
3 Different Perspectives for Future Research
In this volume the investigation of beacons has mostly been carried out at regional or inter-regional scales, with studies of beacons as archaeological sites far less pronounced, and arguably difficult to grasp. As the contributions demonstrate, signalling networks can be reconstructed connecting places far apart, over large-scale geographical distances and across long time periods. Further analyses of these kinds promise more insights, and hold potential for understandings of communications within and between societies, military systems and landscape use, as well as socio-political responses to war and threats.
Because beacon sites are not necessarily physically connected and can only be understood relationally, this creates a challenge for archaeological research, which is commonly—literally—grounded in the ‘archaeological site’. Many contributions in this volume have sought to address this problem in one or two ways: firstly, by considering what beacons were connected to within their locales; secondly, by considering how they might be connected to each other. Both approaches warrant further research.
To reconstruct how beacons operated requires an understanding of the organisational structures of the military landscape, including societal infrastructure and logistics. What were the other military elements of these landscapes, including auxiliary structures and routeways, garrisons and people; and how were these systems operationalised in terms of cost, manning, military supplies and other resources?19 By understanding the structures of each small fraction of the communication network, beacon studies have the potential to shed light on the military capacities and decision making of (pre)historic societies at a very granular scale.
Spectators watch Queen Elizabeth II’s Diamond Jubilee Beacon on 4 June 2012, on Coombe Hill overlooking Chequers near Wendover, Buckinghamshire, England. As in 1977, beacons were lit to mark the Queen’s reign.
CLIFF HIDE NEWS/ALAMY STOCK PHOTO
The same is true for acoustic communication between sites and their surroundings, and on the battlefield. Using instruments as the carnyx, as described by Bertaud, or horns and trumpets, mentioned by Pancorbo Picó and Galera Pedrosa, Thiel, and Bakke, it is possible to test the capability, effect and range of audible signalling. Signals of this sort could transmit more complex messages or even be used to communicate in ideal conditions. And as Bertaud’s paper shows, analysis of the functional characteristics of instruments and their archaeological contexts can give information of the organisation of armies and military communications. Tests of instruments and acoustic communication, and studies of whether they could have functioned as two-way exchanges of more complex messages, and over which distances, hold so-far unrealised potential. The power of sound has only to a small degree been studied from a stationary defence perspective, and more could be done to simulate combat situations. Instruments, such as the tuba and the cornu, could be used for tactical signalling during battle and sometimes even for the organisation of camp life, as described by Thiel. Audible signalling was also, and perhaps especially, effective in scaring enemies entering a territory, as testified by historical sources. Indeed, the psychological impact of visual effects combined with roaring sounds on enemies should not be underestimated.23 Lăzărescu, Bilașco and Vescan24 use sound propagation modelling based on GIS spatial analysis to test visual and audible signalling, and more such analyses should prove useful for future studies of signalling in connection with beacons.
While many papers in this book provide examples of visual analyses to identify chains and networks of beacons, and/or consider signal fires as components of defence systems, they only to a small degree explore the notion of beacons as archaeological sites and structures from a micro perspective. Beacons are often ephemeral sites, and as beacons are made (partially) of wood or other easily flammable material, like the timber superstructure watchtowers described by White, they will not leave behind many traces. Sometimes even other types of structures could also be used for signalling, like rooftops and trees.25 Thus, it can be challenging to get a grip on beacons archaeologically. However, beacons can consist of stone watchtowers, like the Greek watchtowers described by Bakke, while others note pyramidal, rectangular and oval/circular
However challenging it might be, the next step in beacon research should, nevertheless, be to identify and investigate more sites physically in the landscape. This requires new approaches of archaeological and geophysical survey, and harnessing multi-proxy palaeoecology to map the wider landscape around the sites. Additionally, through excavations there is high potential for obtaining datable material that can be analysed by scientific means. Ideally for radiocarbon dating, the excavation of a site could identify multiple layers of charcoal, either from the spot of the actual signal fire, or from the fireplace inside the guard house, if one can be identified (Figure 18.2). Several layers of charcoal would in theory enable a dating sequence of incidents of
Remains of a guard house from Veten at Eldsfjellet in Holsnøy, Alver, Vestland county, Norway. Picture taken during an excavation by the “Viking Beacon-project”, AM-UiS, in May 2025
PHOTO: THEO GIL. ©MARIE ØDEGAARD, AM-UIS
As few actual beacon sites have been studied by archaeologists, many beacons existing in landscape have gone unnoticed. This has led to an underrepresentation of registered sites existing in cultural heritage lists, as well as the occurrence of incorrectly listed sites, for example registered as prehistoric grave mounds on high mountains, even when they have beacon place-names.29 It follows that more archaeological investigations of beacons have a huge potential for dating sites, for defining site-classes, and extending those results to other so-far unidentified monuments. As the examples in this book show how most beacons were part of wider networks of supra-regional communication, dating of any individual site can provide important insights not only at the micro, but also at the meso and macro scale.
Acknowledgements
This contribution was written as part of the project Viking Beacons—Militarism in northern Europe (2021–25), a funded grant awarded by the Norwegian Research Council, project no. 324454.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Aeschylus. Agamemnon, trans. Herbert Weir Smyth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926.
Herodotus. The History of Herodotus, 1, trans. G. C. Macaulay. London and New York: MacMillan and Co, 1890. Accessed 03.05.2025 https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2707/2707-h/2707-h.htm#link2H_4_0003.
Polybius. The Histories, IV. Books 9–15, trans. W. R. Paton, rev. F. W. Walbank, and Christian Habicht. Loeb Classical Library 159. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011.
Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, Silver Jubilee Beacons 1952–1977: An Informal Record of the National Network of Beacons to Celebrate the Silver Jubilee of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth. London: RICS, 1977.
Secondary Sources
Alban, John, and Christopher Thomas Allmand. “Spies and spying in the fourteenth century.” In War, Literature, and Politics in the Late Middle Ages, ed. C. T. Allmand, 73–101. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1976.
Baker, John, and Stuart Brookes. Beyond the Burghal Hidage. Anglo-Saxon Civil Defence in the Viking Age. History of Warfare 84. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Beers, Ward. “Fire and Smoke: Ethnographic and Archaeological Evidence for Line-of-Sight Signaling in North America.” In Papers in Honor of Sheila K. Brewer, Papers of the Archaeological Society of New Mexico 40, eds. Emily J. Brown, Carol J. Condie and Helen K. Crotty, 23–32. Albuquerque: Archaeological Society of New Mexico, 2014.
Beers, Ward. “No One Here Gets Out Alive: Line – of-Sight Communication and Regional Defense in the Prehistoric Rio Abajo, New Mexico.” In Collected papers from the 18th Biennial Mogollon Archaeology Conference. October 9–11, 2014, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, ed, Lonnie C. Ludeman, 205–16. Las Cruces, New Mexico: Friends of Mogollon Archaeology, 2015.
Bell, T. W. “A Roman Signal Station at Whitby,” Archaeological Journal 155, no. 1 (1998): 303–22.
Collingwood, Robin G. The Idea of History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.
Donaldson, J.H. “Signalling Communications and the Roman Imperial Army.” Britannia 19 (1988): 349–56.
Foster, Christopher J. “The Spread of Scribal Literacy in Han China: All along the Watchtowers.” In Power from Below in Premodern Societies, eds., T.L. Thurston and Manuel Fernandez-Gotz, 175–201. Cambridge University press, Cambridge, 2021.
Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. A. Sheridan (Trans.). London: Penguin, 1977.
Gentry, John A. “Intelligence in war: how important is it? How do we know?” Intelligence and National Security 34 (2019), no. 6: 833–50.
Kerkhove, Ray. “Smoke signalling resistance: Aboriginal use of long-distance communication during Australia’s frontier wars.” Queensland Review 28, no. 1 (2021): 1–24.
Khalilieh, Hassan S. “The Ribat of Arsuf and the Coastal Defence System in Early Islamic Palestine.” Journal of Islamic Studies 19, no. 2 (2008): 169–70.
Kohut, Lauren. “Warfare and Alliance: A Human-Scale GIS Analysis of Defensive Alliances in the Colca Valley, Peru.” In Global Perspectives on Landscape and Warfare, eds., Hugo Ikehara-Tsukayama and Juan Carlos Vargas Ruiz, 247–72. Louisville: University Press Colorado, 2022.
Lăzărescu, Vlad-Andrei, Ștefan Bilașco, and Iuliu Vescan. “Big Brother is watching you! Approaching Roman surveillance and signalling at Porolissum.” in Landscape archaeology on the northern frontier of the Roman Empire at Porolissum, eds. Coriolan Horațiu Opreanu and Vlad-Andrei Lăzărescu, 292–301. Cluj-Napoca: Mega Publishing House, 2016.
Lee, Vincent. “Choquequirao to Machu Picchu at the speed of light: visual signaling among the Incas.” Ñawpa Pacha 30, no. 1 (2010): 1–23.
Luoto, J. and Huttunen, P. 1987. Tulitiedotus tutkimuksen kohteena. Kotiseutu 4 (1987): 194–98.
Mullin, David. “Border Crossings. The Archaeology of Borders and Borderlands. An introduction” in Places in Between, ed. David Mullin, 1–12. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2011.
Nørgård, Anna. Store og små sejl – tidsforbrug ved spinding og vævning. In Vikingetidens sejl, festskrift tilegnet Erik Andersen, eds. Morten Ravn, Lone Gebauer Thomsen, Eva Andersson Strand and Henriette Lyngstrøm, 77–96. Arkæologiska skrifter 14. København: Saxo-instituttet, Københavns Universitet, 2016.
Mock, John. “Raising the Alarm: Defensive Communication Networks and the Silk Roads through Wakhan and Chitral.” The Silk Road 15 (2017): 1–12.
Ødegaard, Marie and Jostein Bakke, “Dating of beacons in Norway through samples of varved lakes”, in prep.
Ødegaard, Marie, and Theo Gil. “Lost in the Records? Archaeology and Cataloguing of Beacons in Norwegian Heritage Database.” Primitive Tider, in press.
Santamaria, Jean – Baptiste. “Secrets, Diplomatics, and Spies in Late Medieval France and in the Burgundian State: Parallel Practices and Undercover Operations.” In Beyond Ambassadors, Consuls, Missionaries, and Spies in Premodern Diplomacy, eds., Maurits A. Ebben and Louis Sicking, 159–84. Rulers & Elites 19, Leiden: Brill, 2021.
Scheen, Rolf. “Norges viter.” In Den norske leidangen. Oslo: Sjøforsvarets overkommando, 1951.
Sogno, Cristiana, Bradley K. Storin, and Edward J. Watts, eds., Late Antique Letter Collections. A Critical Introduction and Reference Guide. Berkley: University of California Press, 2016.
Strand, Eva Andersson. Weaving Textiles: Textile Consumption for Travel and Warfare. Viking 84: 176–86. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5617/viking.9053.
Swanson, Steve. “Documenting Prehistoric Communication Networks: A Case Study in the Paquimé Polity,” American Antiquity 68, no. 4 (2003): 753–67.
Woolliscroft, Davis. Roman Military Signalling. Stroud and Charleston: Tempus, 2001.
Zhu, Jianfeng, Yueping Nie, Huaguang Gao, Fang Liu, and Lijun Yu. “GIS-Based Visibility Network and Defensibility Model to Reconstruct Defensive System of the Han Dynasty in Central Xinjiang, China.” ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 6, no. 8 (2017): 247. DOI: 10.3390/ijgi6080247.
See e.g. Cristiana Sogno, Bradley K. Storin and Edward J. Watts, eds., Late Antique Letter Collections. A Critical Introduction and Reference Guide (Berkley: University of California Press, 2016).
E.g. Polybius, The Histories, IV, Books 9–15, trans. W.R. Paton, rev. F.W. Walbank and Christian Habicht (Loeb Classical Library) 159 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011), X, 43. 1–10; Aeschylus, Agamemnon, trans. Herbert Weir Smyth (Cambridge, MA. Harvard University Press, 1926), lines 20–9; and discussions by Davis Woolliscroft, Roman Military Signalling (Stroud and Charleston: Tempus, 2001), J.H. Donaldson, “Signalling Communications and the Roman Imperial Army,” Britannia 19 (1988); Vlad-Andrei Lăzărescu, Ștefan Bilașco and Iuliu Vescan, “Big Brother is watching you! Approaching Roman surveillance and signalling at Porolissum,” in Landscape archaeology on the northern frontier of the Roman Empire at Porolissum, eds. Coriolan Horațiu Opreanu and Vlad-Andrei Lăzărescu (Cluj-Napoca: Mega Publishing House, 2016), pp. 292–301; see also discussion in Chapter 1.
John Baker and Stuart Brookes. Beyond the Burghal Hidage. Anglo-Saxon Civil Defence in the Viking Age (History of Warfare 84) (Leiden: Brill, 2013), p. 35.
Jianfeng Zhu, Yueping Nie, Huaguang Gao, Fang Liu and Lijun Yu, “GIS-Based Visibility Network and Defensibility Model to Reconstruct Defensive System of the Han Dynasty in Central Xinjiang, China,” ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 6, no. 8 (2017), p. 247.
See not least, Michel Foucault’s Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (1977).
See, for example, a review of the literature in David Mullin, “Border Crossings. The Archaeology of Borders and Borderlands. An introduction” in Places in Between, ed. David Mullin (Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2011).
See also the discussion in chapter 1.
Steve Swanson, “Documenting Prehistoric Communication Networks: A Case Study in the Paquimé Polity,” American Antiquity 68, no. 4 (2003), p. 755; Ward Beers, “Fire and Smoke: Ethnographic and Archaeological Evidence for Line-of-Sight Signaling in North America,” in Papers in Honor of Sheila K. Brewer, Papers of the Archaeological Society of New Mexico 40, eds. Emily J. Brown, Carol J. Condie and Helen K. Crotty (Albuquerque: Archaeological Society of New Mexico, 2014), p. 24; Ward Beers, “No One Here Gets Out Alive: Line – of-Sight.
Communication and Regional Defense in the Prehistoric Rio Abajo, New Mexico,” in Collected papers from the 18th Biennial Mogollon Archaeology Conference. october 9–11, 2014, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, ed, Lonnie C. Ludeman (Las Cruces, New Mexico: Friends of Mogollon Archaeology, 2015), pp. 205–16.
Swanson, “Documenting Prehistoric Communication Networks”.
Christopher J. Foster, “The Spread of Scribal Literacy in Han China: All along the Watchtowers,” in Power from Below in Premodern Societies, eds. T.L. Thurston and Manuel Fernandez-Gotz (Cambridge University press, Cambridge, 2021), p. 194.
Hassan S. Khalilieh, “The Ribat of Arsuf and the Coastal Defence System in Early Islamic Palestine,” Journal of Islamic Studies 19, no. 2 (2008), pp. 169–70.
Anna Nørgård, Store og små sejl – tidsforbrug ved spinding og vævning, in Vikingetidens sejl, festskrift tilegnet Erik Andersen, eds. Morten Ravn, Lone Gebauer Thomsen, Eva Andersson Strand and Henriette Lyngstrøm (Arkæologiska skrifter) 14 (København: Saxo-instituttet, Københavns Universitet, 2016), pp. 77–96; Eva Andersson Strand, Weaving Textiles: Textile Consumption for Travel and Warfare, Viking 84, pp. 176–186.
See also e.g. Lauren Kohut, “Warfare and Alliance: A Human-Scale GIS Analysis of Defensive Alliances in the Colca Valley, Peru,” in Global Perspectives on Landscape and Warfare, eds. Hugo Ikehara-Tsukayama and Juan Carlos Vargas Ruiz (Louisville: University Press Colorado, 2022), pp. 247–72; Ray Kerkhove, “Smoke signalling resistance: Aboriginal use of long-distance communication during Australia’s frontier wars,” Queensland Review 28, no. 1 (2021), pp. 1–24; John Mock, “Raising the Alarm: Defensive Communication Networks and the Silk Roads through Wakhan and Chitral,” The Silk Road 15 (2017), pp. 1–12.
Even if the role of intelligence in war is debated: see e.g. John A. Gentry, “Intelligence in war: how important is it? How do we know?,” Intelligence and National Security 34 (2019), no. 6, pp. 833–50.
E.g. Jean – Baptiste Santamaria, “Secrets, Diplomatics, and Spies in Late Medieval France and in the Burgundian State: Parallel Practices and Undercover Operations,” in Beyond Ambassadors, Consuls, Missionaries, and Spies in Premodern Diplomacy, eds., Maurits A. Ebben and Louis Sicking, Rulers & Elites 19 (Leiden: Brill, 2021), p. 167; John Alban and Christopher Thomas Allmand, “Spies and spying in the fourteenth century,” in War, Literature, and Politics in the Late Middle Ages, ed. C.T. Allmand (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1976).
E.g. Vincent Lee, “Choquequirao to Machu Picchu at the speed of light: visual signaling among the Incas,” Ñawpa Pacha 30, no. 1 (2010), pp. 1–23.
Amongst the earliest is the story told by Herodotus of how Harpagus sent a message to King Cyrus of Persia around 550 BC, outlining a plan for victory against the Medians, by concealing a letter in the belly of a hare served at Cyrus’ table. Herodotus, The History of Herodotus, 1, trans. G. C. Macaulay (London and New York: MacMillan and Co, 1890), 123; see also Thiel this volume.
Robin G. Collingwood, The Idea of History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994): p. 213.
E.g. Mock, “Raising the Alarm”.
Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, Silver Jubilee Beacons 1952–1977: An Informal Record of the National Network of Beacons to Celebrate the Silver Jubilee of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth (London: RICS, 1977), p. 29.
E.g. J. Luoto and P. Huttunen, 1987. Tulitiedotus tutkimuksen kohteena. Kotiseutu 4, pp. 194–98; https://www.ucl.ac.uk/early-medieval-atlas/news/2016/aug/lighting-anglo-saxon-beacons [accessed June 2023]; Baker and Brookes, “Beyond the Burghal Hidage”, p. 182.
Woolliscroft, “Roman Military Signalling”; see also Bakke this volume.
Lăzărescu, Bilașco and Vescan, “Big Brother is watching you!,” p. 280.
Lăzărescu, Bilașco and Vescan, “Big Brother is watching you!”.
Beers, “Fire and Smoke”; Kerkhove, “Smoke signalling resistance.”
E.g. Rolf Scheen, “Del 3 Norges viter,ˮ in Den norske leidangen (Oslo: Sjøfarosvarets overkommando, 1951), pp. 235–308; Swanson, “Documenting Prehistoric Communication Networks”; T. W. Bell, A Roman Signal Station at Whitby, Archaeological Journal 155, no. 1 (1998), pp. 303–22; Khalilieh, “The Ribat of Arsuf”; Woolliscroft, “Roman Military Signalling”.
Marie Ødegaard and Jostein Bakke, forthcoming.
Foster, “The Spread of Scribal Literacy,” pp. 175–201.
Marie Ødegaard and Theo Gil, “Lost in the Records? Archaeology and Cataloguing of Beacons in Norwegian Heritage Database,” Primitive Tider, in press.