BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//pretalx//pretalx.com//spathum24//speaker//ANBRLE
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:Europe/Amsterdam
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
DTSTART:20230928T000000
TZNAME:CEST
TZOFFSETFROM:+0200
TZOFFSETTO:+0200
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
DTSTART:20231029T030000
RDATE:20241027T030000
TZNAME:CET
TZOFFSETFROM:+0200
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
DTSTART:20240331T030000
RDATE:20250330T030000
TZNAME:CEST
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0200
END:DAYLIGHT
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
SUMMARY:The Horn of My Salvation\, My Refuge: A Geospatial Study of Fortif
 ied Churches - Liam Downs-Tepper
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20240927T090000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20240927T093000
DTSTAMP:20260905T030209Z
UID:pretalx-spathum24-J9UKEX@pretalx.com
DESCRIPTION:"Space is something abstract\, without any substantial meaning
 . While place refers to how people are aware of/attracted to a certain pie
 ce of space. A place can be seen as space that has a meaning."\n\nAnything
  designed for a single purpose brings with it a purity and clarity of func
 tion. A meat grinder does one thing and does it with aplomb. A mousetrap i
 s the ideal tool to have on hand if the goal is the trapping of mice. The 
 moment multiple purposes are introduced\, however\, the situation becomes 
 more complex - and even more so if those purposes are at odds with each ot
 her. What purpose is a priority? Are design choices a question of compromi
 se? Or do they in fact compromise each other?\n\nFortified Churches are ju
 st such a study in contradictions. A house of worship is intended to be a 
 place of peace\; a fortress is a place of conflict. A sanctuary should be 
 open to all who wish to enter\, yet a fortress requires robust walls\, bas
 tions\, structures of exclusion. These buildings are the physical embodime
 nt of conflicting ideals: inclusion and exclusion\, peace and war\, prospe
 rity and fear. Their mere existence suggests a story\; for a fortified chu
 rch is built for one group and is intended as protection against another.\
 n\nThis project examines the extent of church fortifications throughout Eu
 rope\, using comparative digital humanities based geospatial analysis of l
 arge-scale data as well as more intensive individual case studies. Through
  the use of methods that have yet to be applied to this field\, this proje
 ct aims to determine how the intersection of culture and topography impact
 s the placement of different styles of fortified church throughout Europe.
  Given the geographic\, temporal\, and cultural diversity of fortified chu
 rches\, this research would look to find both commonalities and differenti
 ating characteristics between different “clusters” of fortified church
 es. In its most reduced form\, then\, the research question for this disse
 rtation is: What factors determine the locations of fortified churches\, a
 nd how consistent are these factors between different regions?\n\nGiven th
 e moderate volume of scholarship on the subject thus far\, this research a
 pproaches the subject in two novel ways. First\, by identifying and collec
 ting assorted theories on Fortified Church placement\, and then rigorously
  testing each for veracity. Second\, by scaling up the area and volume of 
 sites under examination\, taking advantage of GIS to showcase trends witho
 ut getting mired in exceptions and individual case studies. \n\nExaminatio
 ns of current literature on the topic find a wide variety of different exp
 lanations for fortress church locations\, among them: \nAs a direct respon
 se to the Mongol Invasion of 1241-1242 and external threats.\nFear of Otto
 man incursions.\nFear of Pagan pushback.\nAs a continuation of the legacy 
 of the Teutonic Knights\, crusader orders\, Saxons\, or other specific gro
 ups.\nAs a demonstration of “peasant fortifications” - intended for us
 e by common people.\nThere are also a number of theories which explicitly 
 address geographic placement:\nPlacement on hills.\nPlacement in foothills
 .\nThe desire to use church towers as watchtowers.\nStrategic placement to
  create a barrier/chain against incursion.\n\nOther work aims to show thes
 e structures as inheritors of different legacies: sometimes an evolution o
 f Roman fortification concepts\, sometimes as a twist on monastic protecti
 on and isolation.\n\nThis research brings together an array of different m
 ethods and offers further insights into both similarities and differences 
 across Europe’s fortified churches. This work builds upon a significant 
 amount of mapping and research done by historians in the 1800s\, whose int
 erest in the medieval era led to the creation of some of the most detailed
  material available. There is therefore naturally a massive amount of geor
 eferencing involved\, as well as other approaches to pinpointing (sometime
 s no longer extant) locations via satellite imagery. Viewshed analysis\, l
 east cost path\, and intervisibility analysis all come into play as well.\
 n\nResearch thus far has demonstrated that many of these theories capture 
 only small aspects of larger issues or are downright false\, often mired i
 n nationalistic ideology. Testing of them provides initial results indicat
 ing that the prevailing narratives on fortified church placement are deepl
 y flawed. In Transylvania\, for example\, fortified churches do not tend t
 o appear on either hills or in foothills\; they are more commonly found in
  areas which lack natural protection. They also do not tend to have any fo
 rm of interconnected intervisibility\, or at least no more so than non-for
 tified churches: there is nothing that indicates that they were placed wit
 h the intent to create some form of barrier or fence. They do not\, in gen
 eral\, have any greater view area than non-fortified churches\, indicating
  that they were not designed to be dedicated watchtowers. \n\nOther forms 
 of fortified churches demonstrate very different placement logic. Irish ro
 und towers do seem to have more expansive views than other comparable chur
 ches\, indicating that they were indeed intended to survey the area. \n\nT
 his is a methodologically and spatially diverse endeavor. It also shines a
  light on the spread of different contexts in which they were developed: w
 hether it is internal strife\, coastal protection\, or militarizing border
 s\, there are rather different outcomes. This work necessarily combines a 
 number of different approaches - both digital and textual - to offer a mor
 e complete view of fortified churches in context.
LOCATION:MG1 00.04 Hörsaal
URL:https://pretalx.com/spathum24/talk/J9UKEX/
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR