To send 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 sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org
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 sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent 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.
Late Medieval Castles is a companion to Anglo-Norman Castles (2003), a volume that brought together a series of historiographically significant articles on castles and castle-building in the period from the Norman Conquest to the early thirteenth century. The format and themes of the present collection are broadly comparable with the earlier book, but with the focus on those castles dating to the period c.1250–1500.
In the course of bringing Anglo-Norman Castles to publication the somewhat arbitrary cut-off date of c.1225 seemed unsatisfactory for a number of reasons. On a practical level, there were highly relevant articles that could not be included because the subject matter fell outside the chronological range of the volume. A more scholarly concern was the fact that a number of issues pertinent to castle-building in the eleventh and twelfth centuries could not be satisfactorily addressed without reference to subsequent developments in the thirteenth and fourteenth. Allied to this, a focus on Anglo-Norman building (no matter how justifiable in historical terms) does perhaps contribute, albeit unwittingly, to the erroneous idea that the eleventh and twelfth centuries are the most important centuries for castle-building, a time when the ‘true’ castle is to be found, and that the period that follows, particularly after 1300, is something of an anti-climax. The present volume should therefore be seen as a continuation of the broad themes discussed in the introduction to Anglo-Norman Castles, with the aim of pursuing them in a late medieval context.
In the years since 2003 there have been a number of important publications in the field of castle studies, and castles continue to be a source of controversy and to provoke debate. Despite the fact that the availability of some secondary material has been made easier through electronic access, I have been consistently reminded by academic colleagues that a compilation such as this is worthwhile, both for the student reader and those seeking a path into the specialist secondary literature. This author at least also believes that there is value in bringing together in one place a series of important contributions that have defined the subject and which also illustrate a diversity of approaches.
The castles of the late medieval period represent some of the finest medieval monuments in Britain, with an almost infinite capacity to fascinate and draw controversy. They are also a source of considerable academic debate. The contents of this volume represent key works in castle scholarship. Topics discussed include castle warfare, fortress customs, architectural design and symbolism, spatial planning and the depiction of castles in medieval romance. The contributions also serve to highlight the diversity of approaches to the medieval castle, ranging from the study of documentary and literary sources, analysis of fragmentary architectural remains and the recording of field archaeology. The result is a survey that offers an in-depth analysis of castle building from the thirteenth to the fifteenth centuries, and places castles within their broader social, architectural and political contexts.
Robert Liddiard is Professor of History, University of East Anglia.
Contributors: Nicola Coldstream, Charles Coulson, Philip Dixon, Graham Fairclough, P.A. Faulkner, John Goodall, Beryl Lott, Charles McKean, T.E. McNeill, Richard K. Morris, Michael Prestwich, Christopher Taylor, Muriel A. Whitaker.
This chapter discusses some of the key geographic shifts in Australia's international economic relations in the second half of the 20th century, particularly the refocusing of investment, trade and migration towards East Asia. It then examines the main explanatory factors and analyses the consequences of the shifts, which have primarily been increased material prosperity for most of Australia's population, a greater openness of the economy and society, and the adoption of multiculturalism. The main variable affecting international economic relations is the exchange rate. In 1972 a screening process was introduced to monitor foreign investment and limit takeover of Australian companies. The FIRB was established in 1975, and the screening process was tightened under successive governments. In 1983 the FIRB rejection rate doubled. Economic liberalisation in Australia and New Zealand was accompanied by deeper trans-Tasman integration through the 1982 CER Agreement.
Economic development has been a focus of much government policy throughout Australia's history. This chapter examines some of the major aspects of public policy in Australia between the late 19th century and the immediate years following World War 2. It focuses on major policy decisions relating to international trade, labour, immigration, competition, rural production and management of the economy during wartime. During the second half of the 19th century, Australia yielded vast wealth from natural resources. There were large discoveries of minerals, most notably those of alluvial gold in Victoria from 1851 onwards, but also copper in South Australia and gold in other colonies, in particular Western Australia towards the end of the century. Customs and excise duties were to become almost the federal government's sole revenue source for the first 10 years of Federation, and a major source in the years leading to World War 2.
Children in care often have poor outcomes. There is a lack of evaluative
research into intervention options.
To examine the efficacy of Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care for
Adolescents (MTFC-A) compared with usual care for young people at risk in
foster care in England.
A two-arm single (assessor) blinded randomised controlled trial (RCT)
embedded within an observational quasi-experimental case–control study
involving 219 young people aged 11–16 years (trial registration: ISRCTN
68038570). The primary outcome was the Child Global Assessment Scale
(CGAS). Secondary outcomes were ratings of educational attendance,
achievement and rate of offending.
The MTFC-A group showed a non-significant improvement in CGAS outcome in
both the randomised cohort (n = 34, adjusted mean
difference 1.3, 95% CI −7.1 to 9.7, P = 0.75) and in the
trimmed observational cohort (n = 185, adjusted mean
difference 0.95, 95% CI −2.38 to 4.29, P = 0.57). No
significant effects were seen in secondary outcomes. There was a possible
differential effect of the intervention according to antisocial
There was no evidence that the use of MTFC-A resulted in better outcomes
than usual care. The intervention may be more beneficial for young people
with antisocial behaviour but less beneficial than usual treatment for
This volume publishes a selection of the papers first presented during the Society for Post-Medieval Archaeology's conference Engaging the Recent Past in 2010. This introductory paper seeks to situate the other contributions, placing them in the context of wider processes including the rise of Community Archaeology and the development of an explicit political consciousness in archaeology. Concepts of multivocality and memory are discussed, as are the practices of public participation. The paper argues that a more critical stance needs to be taken towards public engagement in archaeology, and this is discussed in relation to concepts of power and social learning. The paper advocates a move beyond limited participation (confined to particular activities, such as participatory site identification and recording, and to the context of particular projects) and it advocates a move towards participatory governance. Here, the archaeological professional is repositioned as a collaborator engaging with others, including relevant public constituencies and the relevant authorities, in the social process of creating knowledge about the past and defining how historic environments and relationships will be protected, managed or transformed in the future.
This volume arises from the Society for Post-Medieval Archaeology conference Engaging the Recent Past: Public, Political Post-Medieval Archaeology (Glasgow, September 2010). The focus of the conference was the contemporary context of post-medieval archaeology: the values, politics and ethics associated with the recent past, and the practices through which we engage with and construct that past. Contributors to the conference considered these issues in relation to the post-medieval and contemporary archaeologies of the U.K., Ireland and a number of other countries, and they promoted positions founded in a variety of philosophical, political and practice traditions.
This paper will demonstrate, through recent fieldwork and political engagements in Bristol, UK, the potential for a new kind of political archaeology, not based around supporting political parties or facilitating community engagement as ends in themselves, but around creating new kinds of knowledge that can be used to influence politics and politicians at the highest levels.
INTRODUCTION: BIG P, SMALL p
The phrase ‘archaeology is a political act’ is oft repeated, but as with any such definitive phrase when used in academia each word of it has multiple meanings. For instance ‘is’. Well, it is not always. Archaeology can be a political act and archaeology sometimes is a political act, but this is not a universal truth. Likewise, the word archaeology can be taken different ways itself. There is academic archaeology, private sector archaeology, public archaeology, uses of archaeology in the heritage industry and so on, all intrinsically connected, but each with nuances different enough to render universality meaningless.
In this paper, I wish to put forward the possibility that contemporary forms of archaeological thought and investigation can play a role in redefining the ways in which politicians engage with ordinary people and everyday situations. Rather than limiting themselves to facilitating community engagement or lobbying politicians in relation to heritage legislation, I will suggest that archaeologists can move towards using their unique perspectives on contemporary and historic environments to change the very way in which the connection between archaeology and politics is conceived, using archaeological investigation to understand the nature of contemporary politics and feeding this back into the wider system of policy making instead of merely working within the confines of existing heritage legislation.