We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Online ordering will be unavailable from 17:00 GMT on Friday, April 25 until 17:00 GMT on Sunday, April 27 due to maintenance. We apologise for the inconvenience.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Written accounts suggest there were major changes in agricultural practices in Anatolia as the region switched between Roman, Byzantine, Arab and Turkic control, yet archaeological evidence of these changes is offered only on a site-by-site basis. This article presents the first synthesis of archaeobotanical, palynological and zooarchaeological evidence for changes in plant and animal husbandry in Anatolia through the first and second millennia AD. Available data indicate a minimal role of climate change in agricultural shifts but offer evidence for substantial changes towards short-term-return agricultural strategies in response to declining personal security, changing patterns of military provisioning and distinct taxation regimes.
The management and mismanagement of Roman groves was a serious matter, and intentional and unintentional violations of these spaces could be severely punished. In spite of this, groves remained loosely defined by Romans and their boundaries were commonly misunderstood, a confusion that has continued into modern scholarship, where groves are understood as either a clearing in a wood or a dark space lit by artificial lighting. This article takes up this discussion, and explores the nature of an ancient grove as a well-attested space under forest management that influences later conversations on the nature of wooded spaces in more recent periods.
‘Poetical Plants and Leafy Landscapes’ counters perceptions of Restoration poetry as being overwhelmingly preoccupied with the urban environment. It begins by evaluating the importance attached to trees and plants in the political ideologies of the early Restoration, as exemplified in Edmund Waller’s A Poem on St. James’s Park (1661) and John Evelyn’s Sylva (1664). Sponsored by the Royal Society, and now recognised as a pioneering work in the fields of arboriculture and conservation, Sylva crucially relied on select quotations from Latin and English poets to achieve its principal aim: encouraging Evelyn’s gentlemanly readers to grow more trees. Later sections of the chapter explore the treatment of trees and plants by poets such as Abraham Cowley, John Milton, Mary Roper, Lucy Hutchinson, the earl of Rochester and Aphra Behn. Cowley’s treatment of trees and plants in his original English poems and translations are compared both with John Milton’s near-contemporary use of plant-life in Paradise Lost and also with his own Latin masterpiece, the Sex Libri Plantarum, while the Plantarum is considered as a work both of the 1660s (when it was mostly written) and of the 1680s (when it was controversially translated into English).
Despite the contemporary importance of the Ridge forest to the city of Delhi as its most important ‘green lung’, the concept of urban forestry has been explored neither by urban historians studying Delhi nor by environmental historians. This article places the colonial efforts to plant a forest on the Delhi Ridge from 1883 to 1913 within the context of the gradual deforestation of the countryside around Delhi and the local colonial administration's preoccupation with encouraging arboriculture. This project of colonial forestry prioritized the needs of the white colonizers living in Delhi, while coming into conflict repeatedly with indigenous peasants. With the decision to transfer the capital to Delhi in 1911, the afforestation of the Delhi Ridge received a further stimulus. Town planners' visions of a building the capital city of New Delhi were meant to assert the grandeur of British rule through imposing buildings, with the permanence of the British in India being emphasised by the strategic location of the ruins of earlier empires within the city. The principles of English landscape gardening inspired the planning of New Delhi, with the afforestation of the Delhi Ridge being undertaken to provide a verdant backdrop for—the Government House and the Secretariat—the administrative centre of British government in India. Imperial notions of landscaping, which were central to the afforestation of the Delhi Ridge epitomised colonial rule and marginalized Indians.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.