Woodward 2013 Milita

Article
Progress in Human Geography

2014, Vol. 38(1) 40–61
Military landscapes: Agendas ª The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permission:
and approaches for future sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0309132513493219
phg.sagepub.com
research
Rachel Woodward
Newcastle University, UK
Abstract
This paper reviews existing approaches to military landscapes, establishing the field’s breadth and variety. It
suggests areas for future military landscape research around virtual military landscapes, and considers the
landscape effects of military privatization and outsourcing, landscape issues pertaining to non-state military
actors, the endurance and effects of post-military landscapes, and the role of landscapes of peace and
reconciliation. The paper discusses practices of military landscape exploration, and the contributions that
they bring to emergent critical approaches in military studies. The paper argues for the continued validity and
specificity of terminologies associated with the category of ‘military’ in the study of such landscapes.
Keywords
armed conflict, landscape, militarism, militarization, military, war
I Introduction collection of political, social and cultural shifts

in civilian relationships with armed forces, partic-
This paper considers emergent research agendas
ularly in advanced capitalist economies. It is
in the critical analysis of military landscapes. It
appropriate at this point in time to consider
reviews how military landscapes have hitherto
emergent areas for inquiry consequent on these
been defined and examined, and on the basis of
developments, and to consider how landscape
this identifies significant future research direc-
studies might make a distinctive contribution to
tions for military landscape studies, and for the
conceptual understandings of militarism and mil-
wider conceptualization of militarism and its con-
itary activities, subjects which are becoming
sequences. Reflecting a century of global armed
more entrenched as key concerns for social scien-
conflict, along with evolving debates within land-
tific inquiry.
scape studies, the examination of the relation-
This paper proceeds through three stages.
ships between military activities and landscapes
First, it provides a selective overview of key
has long constituted a fruitful focus for inquiry
themes in existing literatures on military land-
(see Brunn, 1987; Pearson, 2012; Woodward,
scapes, and identifies new areas for future
2004). Yet military power and its effects are not
static; recent developments include over a decade
of active military operations by NATO and
Corresponding author:
US-led coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, Daysh Building, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon
broader changes in the nature and practice of Tyne NE1 7RU, UK.
military operations at a range of scales, and a Email: [email protected]
Woodward 41
landscape study consequent on contemporary ‘militarization’ as that multi-faceted set of social,

developments in military powers, capabilities cultural, economic and political processes by
and effects. Second, it explores the specificity which military approaches to social problems and
of landscape-focused approaches to understand- issues gain both elite and popular acceptance.
ing military issues and the contribution this
perspective makes to emergent debates within
critical military studies. Third, it considers how
II Military landscapes: existing
the focus on landscapes takes forward debates approaches and future directions
on understanding militarism and militarization What precisely constitutes a military landscape
in the context of questions concerning the contin- remains open to debate (see Pearson et al.,
ued validity of these concepts and terminologies. 2010a, for an introduction). In the overview
The paper uses the following definitions. which follows, the range of possibilities is dis-
‘Landscape’ suggests multiple conceptualiza- cussed, but it should be noted that the parameters
tions which, within and beyond human geogra- of the category defined here – landscapes which
phy, have informed and enriched our collective reflect in their constitution and expression the
understandings of the world (see Wylie, 2007). imprint of military activities, militarism and mili-
In this exploration of military landscapes, three tarization – is not the only approach. Alternatives
broad conceptualizations of landscape take include a process-derived typology organized
prominence. First, landscape can be the material around different military and related activities
patterning and morphology of land (regardless (Pearson, 2012), or different types of military fea-
of its ‘natural’ or ‘human’ origins), requiring tures (Osborne, 2004), or a broader functional
description in order to establish the facts of and idea of landscapes of conflict (Muir, 1999) or
explanations for location and distribution. Sec- landscapes of defence (Gold and Revill, 2000; see
ond, landscape can be understood with reference also Philo, 2012) which includes landscapes of
to the representational qualities of landscapes, an armed conflict but also any other types of conflict,
approach which understands landscapes as texts and excludes military-related activities in non-
to be read for what they tell us about the exercise conflict contexts. Defining the parameters of the
of power over space. Third, landscapes are also category around the constitution and expression
experiential, engaged with through our bodies, of military activities, militarism and militariza-
senses, movements and emotions, and brought tion is further complicated in the present by the
into being through our being. The intention here growth of securitization and associated debates
is not to map studies of military landscapes onto (and I return to this point below).
this schema, but rather to explore military land- The long-established, traditional way of
scape studies across the range of possibilities understanding military landscapes, as the inter-
suggested by these approaches. The other key play between military strategy and landscapes
terms for this paper are ‘military’, ‘militarism’ or the ‘terrain and tactics’ approach (Carman and
and ‘militarization’. The terms ‘military’ and Carman, 2006; Doyle and Bennett, 2002), con-
‘military activity’ refer to material and other tinues. Recent examples include the study of the
resources pertaining to the prosecution of poten- relic Second World War landscapes of the Battle
tially lethal armed force organized and executed of the Bulge in the Ardennes, Belgium (Harrison
on the authority of the state for its political and Passmore, 2008; Passmore and Harrison,
purposes. Following Kuus (Flusty et al., 2008: 2008), the reinterpretation of the course of the
625), we can also distinguish between ‘militar- Battle of Culloden (1746) in Scotland (Pollard,
ism’ as an ideology that prioritizes military 2009), and a re-reading of a South Carolina Civil
force as a necessary resolver of conflict, and War coastal battery landscape through the use of
42 Progress in Human Geography 38(1)
environmental reconstruction techniques (Hip- (Farish and Lackenbauer, 2009; Lackenbauer

pensteel, 2008). This approach tends to focus at and Farish, 2007), through the ideas of ‘militant
the scale of the battlefield and is less concerned tropicality’ informing understandings of warfare
(like traditional military geography – see Palka in the Caribbean in the 1940s and 1950s and
et al., 2005) with political questions of violence Vietnam in the 1960s (Clayton, 2012) and the
and its effects and spatialities. More critical environmental present of ‘political forests’ in
approaches examine how a wider politics around Cold War Southeast Asia (Peluso and Vanderge-
armed conflict events is written on battlefields in est, 2011). The projection of military power is
the aftermath of war. Battlefields can be read as dependent on the legitimation of spaces through
places of national identity construction, as Her- which this can happen (see Williams, 2011).
man (2008) explains through an analysis of the Landscape matters are inevitably bound up
dominant US war narrative in the construction with practices of legitimation, particularly so
of meanings around the War in the Pacific when military landscape modifications have
National Historical Park on Guam. Interpreta- negative environmental and geomorphological
tions and presentational strategies of battlefields consequences. The environmental contamina-
shift over time, reflecting the interplay between tion of landscapes following war, and the poli-
shifting forms of knowledge about sites and tics of the management of the residue of
changing public perceptions and sensibilities armed action have been studied at Bikini atoll
about war in general and specific conflicts or (Davis, 2005, 2007), Vieques, Puerto Rico
incidents. So, for example, changing interpreta- (Davis et al, 2007), and Fiji (Bennett, 2001).
tive frameworks have been charted at sites such Contamination in turn raises questions about the
as the Washita Battlefield National Historic Site interplay between environmental and national
(the place of an attack on a Cheyenne camp by identity politics, as examples from the USA
Custer’s forces in 1868 – see Hurt, 2010), the (Beck, 2009; Havlick, 2007, 2011; Hourdequin
Culloden battlefield site (Masson and Harden, and Havlick, 2010), the UK (Cole, 2010) and
2009), the Isandlwana site of battle between Australia (Instone, 2010) all show.
British and Zulu forces in South Africa in 1879 The most significant progression in military
(Pollard, 2007), and sites in Delhi associated with landscape debates in recent years comes from
the Indian revolt in 1857 (Lahiri, 2003). The a critical mass of studies exploring the sheer
politics of battlefields as they become sites of range of effects of military action and militari-
heritage and tourism are both collective (Wilson, zation more generally in the production of land-
2010) and personal (Dunkely et al., 2010). The scapes of human settlement. Examples include
interplay between landscape morphology, mili- accounts of the militarized landscapes of Nico-
tary utility and landscape representation and sia and Cyprus as a consequence of the histories
interpretation as an analytic focus in studies of peacekeeping and border stabilization in this
of military landscapes is also evident at much divided island (Higate and Henry, 2011; Lisle,
larger regional and subnational scales. Examples 2007), the multi-faceted militarization of space
include studies of the Alps during the First World in Okinawa, Japan, dominated by US defence
War (Keller, 2009), France during the Second forces since the end of the Second World War
World War (Pearson, 2006, 2008, 2009), and the because of US military ambitions in the region
British defence estate across the 20th century (Yamazaki, 2011), and the complex architecture
(Dudley, 2012). At this scale, the militarization of military occupation in Israel/Palestine (Weiz-
of landscape has been used to trace the co- man, 2007). Military landscaping can be strange
constitutive imagination of both defence and and uncanny, shown in the complex, intercon-
environment in Canada across the Cold War nected military landscapes parallel to those of
Woodward 43
the civilian world, reflecting military demands imperative’ (Evans, 2009) is more usually
for land appropriation, space for weapons test- explored as a manifestation of securitization
ing, and alternative visualizations of airspace (and I return to the issue of terminologies
(Flintham, 2011). The strange character of mil- below). Yet work on the militarization/securiti-
itary landscaping is seen too in the decaying, zation of urban space is instructive for the
haunting histories of scientific and technologi- degree to which it reveals the growth of ostensi-
cal military power caught in the landscapes of bly civilian infrastructures and architectures as
the UK’s East Anglia and the Orford Ness bal- military in origin and purpose (see also Coaffee
listics and radar testing site (Davis, 2012a, et al., 2009). We should also recognize the tena-
2012b), and the concealed or liminal spaces of city in urban forms and lives of a military inheri-
the bunker (Beck, 2011; Bennett, 2011a, tance into a civilian present, and the possibilities
2011b). Military landscapes can normalize or otherwise of conversion of post-military
military presences and priorities, seen through landscapes (Bagaeen, 2006).
the configuration of domestic, civilian spaces The landscapes constituted by military objec-
according to military norms, as Lutz (2001) tives and power are also experienced at much
describes with reference to the US Fort Bragg/ more personal scales, and the co-constitution of
Fayettville area, and as Bernazzoli and Flint soldier and landscape has provided a distinct con-
(2010) describe with reference to Fort Campbell, tribution to more recent sociological accounts of
Kentucky (see also Tivers, 1999, for an analysis military identities. We can consider, for example,
of civilian Aldershot, UK). Civilian urban land- the ways in which the domestic and interior
scapes are in turn vulnerable to militarized recon- spaces of British Army institutions such as bar-
figuration through deliberate targeting, what racks provide the context for the constitution and
Bevan (2006) terms cultural cleansing with archi- expression of modes of military masculinities
tecture as its medium (see also Boyd and Linehan, (Atherton, 2009), or the spaces of a US military
2012, for a wider discussion of warfare and the charter school as the context for the development
built environment). of adolescent militarized identities (Johnson,
Military landscapes are also landscapes of 2010). The construction and articulation of mili-
construction where military priorities shape tary masculinities are processes contingent on a
emergent urban forms, visible in spatial config- particular use and imagination of specific types
urations of military domesticity (Gillem, 2007) of landscape (Hoegaerts, 2010; Woodward,
and urban morphologies (Farish, 2003), and less 2006). British soldiers in the First World War,
visibly through state-military articulations of argues Wilson (2011), constructed a sense of
threat and appropriate response evident in what place on the Western Front through the observa-
Graham terms the ‘new military urbanism’ tion, identification and naming of landscape fea-
(Graham, 2009, 2010, 2012; see also Coward, tures, part of a process of asserting personal
2009). The blending of infrastructures of social agency in reaction to the passivity demanded by
domination and control into spaces that are not war. Military landscapes are therefore a constitu-
directly associated with the military raises the ent for the production and articulation of military
question as to whether the materialities and con- identities. Civilian experience too is shaped by
trols of the new military urbanism evident in military landscapes, seen for example in negotia-
border zones, transport nodes and networks, tions by the civilian spouses of military personnel
public spaces and buildings and the general (particularly wives) to lives lived in proximity to
infrastructure of cities could be identified as military bases (A. Murphy, unpublished data), or
military landscapes. Primarily, they are not read the responses of civilian visitors to the spectacle
in those terms, and the ‘urban military and space of the military airshow (Rech, 2012).
Landscapes of mourning and remembrance discursive and material, so we see changes to

for past military events can also be understood cemeteries (see Fuchs, 2004, on British war
as military landscapes. Although not without graves in Jerusalem) and domestic memorials
precedent (see Clarke, 2008, on late 18th- (see Stephens, 2007, on the First World War Vic-
century memorials to the French revolutionary toria Park memorial, Perth, Western Australia).
wars), the aftermath of the First World War ush- Shifting modes of commemoration promoted by
ered in an extraordinary period of symbolic the state and its actors play out through land-
landscape creation (Bushaway, 1992; Heffer- scapes such as those of Bulgarian memorializa-
nan, 1995; Morris, 1997), and fascination with tion to the Great War (Dimitrova, 2005) and
these landscapes endures, symptomatic perhaps Finnish state memorialization practices to the
of the late 20th-century memory boom around dead of the Second World War (Raivo, 2004).
that conflict (Winter, 2006). The former West- Debate continues to revolve around the develop-
ern Front dominates, and sites such as Passchen- ment of landscapes of varying degrees of perma-
daele on the Somme stand for the whole of the nency through the interplay of private grief,
Great War, despite that conflict’s wider territor- personal reflection, public expressions of militar-
ial reach (Iles, 2003), and multiple sites of ism and national narratives of identity (Inglis,
remembrance seal places across Belgium and 1998; Jenkings et al., 2012; Johnson, 1999,
northern France as perpetual landscapes of mil- 2003; Lomsky-Feder, 2005; Managhan, 2012;
itary aftermath. Identified for their significance Moriarty, 1997; Tarlow, 1999; Walklate et al.,
as places of national identity construction and 2011). The reconfiguration of the National Mall
reconstruction, site-specific studies include in Washington DC through the military-security
assessments of the Newfoundland memorial at apparatus of urban control and surveillance, and
Beaumont Hammel on the Somme (Gough, the military-memory apparatus of the new(ish)
2004a), the Canadian national memorial on Second World War memorial monument both
Vimy ridge (Hucker, 2009), the South African illustrate this well (see Benton-Short, 2006,
memorial at Delville Wood (Foster, 2004), and 2007; Doss, 2008). Analysis of the ways in which
the Ulster Memorial Tower also on the Somme dissent against dominant narratives of remem-
(Switzer and Graham, 2010). The constant brance and their gendered, classed politics,
interplay around these sites of remembrance and explores how dissent coheres around these sites
forgetting produces ‘a palimpsest of overlap- too (Gough, 2000; Gulley, 1993; Rainbird,
ping, multi-vocal landscapes’, landscapes of 2003). These landscapes can be small and domes-
ongoing processes (Saunders, 2001: 37) with tic (Oushakine, 2006), temporary and unofficial
changing meanings to subsequent generations (Sidaway and Mayell, 2007) or invisible to those
of visitors (Winter, 2009). without the requisite cultural and political knowl-
Studies of the rescaling and reinterpretations edge to read them, as Steinberg and Taylor (2003)
of sites with changing political contexts empha- illustrate around memorial practices associated
size the contingency of landscapes of military with the loss of the Guatemalan civil war. The
memorialization. This has been explored in great question of what, exactly, constitutes a military
detail with reference to Singapore (Muzaini, memorial space, and how scale and temporality
2006; Muzaini and Yeoh, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c, shape the constitution and expression of military
2007; Muzaini et al., 2007) where the emergent landscapes is raised (implicitly) in Jenks’ (2008)
post-colonial nation has demanded national and exploration of military pasts and presents in Los
humanitarian readings to replace older personal Angeles’ Little Tokyo district. The politics of mil-
and imperial interpretations of the Second World itary memorial landscapes extends to the possibil-
War. Contextual change is both political/ ity of such sites escaping established, standard and
Woodward 45
utterly pervasive ideas about nationhood and industrial-media-entertainment complex. Given

memory, as Gough (2002) explores with reference the mass appeal of gaming and its market share,
to the possibility of military memorial forms’ the involvement of military advisors and the
advocacy of peace. The politics of memorializa- wealth of militarized landscape imaginaries con-
tion extends also to sites bearing witness to mili- jured up in the virtual, fictitious and not-so-
tarized or paramilitary violence, as Johnson fictitious worlds of wargaming, this would seem
(2011) explores with reference to memorials to the to be an area ripe with potential. Furthermore, the
Omagh bombing in Northern Ireland. less-celebrated virtualities conjured through
This overview, then, gives an indication of the computer-generated imagery and incorporated
range of approaches to the analysis of military within filmic and televisual portrayals of military
landscapes. It is notable how much of this work pasts and presents would, too, seem to be a fruitful
explores interpretations and practices in the pres- area for closer investigation for the functions they
ent of landscapes constituted by past military perform as representational tools. Consider, for
activities (and there is nothing inherently proble- example, the ways in which news media reports
matic with that, in terms of the scope of landscape and the multiple television documentaries about
studies). Yet, looking at contemporary activities, the ongoing war in Afghanistan use Google Earth
processes and issues, and the progression of mil- overlays and graphics packages in combination to
itary influence in social and cultural life, suggests explain courses of action around specific encoun-
a number of emergent agendas for future research ters which simultaneously simplify and legiti-
around the intersections between ‘military’ and mate activities – and render possible such
‘landscape’ which are instructive about the evol- readings – from actions of confused, frightening
ving co-constitution and expression of both. and bloody violence. The cumulative effect of
These are: the emergence of virtual military land- computer-generated imagery of the landscapes
scapes; the landscaping effects of military priva- of contemporary warfare is an area for further
tization and outsourcing; the landscapes of investigation, less for the insights facilitated by
paramilitary and non-state military actors; the these technologies of illustration and more for the
idea of post-military landscapes; and landscapes effects and affects such readings enable.
of peace and reconciliation. It is to these I now A second area for future research emerges
turn. from a wider set of organizational changes
Primarily evident in computer or video gam- within military forces around the outsourcing,
ing, virtual military landscapes are a key site for privatization and subcontracted management
the articulation of military landscape imaginaries. of military functions and territories. This is pos-
More traditional analytic approaches to land- sibly the most significant development in the
scape focused on representation and deconstruc- organization and deployment of military power
tion continue to show their utility through their by advanced capitalist economies (particularly
application to military-themed games (Höglund, the USA and the UK) in the past 20 years.
2008; Salter, 2011), while more recent critiques Although the emergence of private military and
attentive to both production practices underpin- security companies is generating a substantial
ning these virtual landscapes (Power, 2007) and quantity of critical reflection about the wider
the affectual and experiential engagement of geographical, political and economic implica-
gamers with these landscapes (D. Bos, unpub- tions of this shift in the control of militarized
lished data; Dittmer, 2010; Shaw, 2010; Shaw power from the state to non-state actors under
and Warf, 2009) recognize the significance of neoliberal governance regimes (see, for exam-
gaming as both a social (leisure) practice and as ple, Gallaher, 2012; Higate, 2013; Krahman,
a significant element within the military- 2013), there has yet to be any substantial
reflection as to what these changes bring to the these effects might differ from state military
landscapes in which they are performed and action, and what those differences might mean
which they in turn constitute. Prosaic, unre- for understanding paramilitary and non-state
markable but highly necessary functions such military violence. There is also an issue here
as logistics and supply, and the servicing of the concerning the possibilities for and limits to
bodies of military personnel, are increasingly researcher engagement with actors who almost
being outsourced and subcontracted, changes by definition work outside the structures of
accommodated within military spaces hitherto accountability and visibility inherent in the
unadapted to the demands of the civilian econ- state-legitimated deployment of military force.
omy (see, for example, Chandrasekaran, 2006). This is to a very great extent a methodological
Examples include the visible changes brought issue, and I return to this in the next section.
to military bases, barracks and training areas by A fourth area for further military landscapes
non-military enterprises and employees; the research concerns post-military landscapes.
landscape impacts of civilian regimes of defence Post-military landscapes are those without a mil-
environment management; and the strange inter- itary function in the present, but where the
twining of civilian heritage management regimes imprint of a former military function remains too
and military operations, training and basing evi- pervasive to enable the erasure of their military
dent in parts of Britain’s defence estate. The origins. The redundant structures of Cold War
landscaping effects of these practices are defence across Europe and North America would
unknown in the present, but given the present be a prime example (see, for example, Havlick,
dominance of outsourcing models in the organi- 2007, 2011). Post-military landscapes arguably
zation of military capabilities, and given what we demand different interpretative frames which
know about the distinctiveness of military priva- take as their starting point the continuity of mil-
tization, it is likely that such changes will be itary imprint despite the removal of military
played out with visible landscape effects. power and control, and require us to look to their
A third area concerns the landscaping practices present and future particularly when re-use is
of non-state military actors, not as outsourced orientated towards tourism and heritage. In turn,
operatives for governments, but as paramili- this raises issues beyond the more immediate
tary actors operating against state-organized conclusions that these sites enable us to draw
military forces in insurgency and revolutionary concerning the longevity and endurance of mili-
contexts. The vast majority of existing litera- tary power as a landscaping agent. One concerns
ture on military landscapes examines those the functions of such sites as visitor attractions in
brought about through the activities of state- contributing to narratives in the present about the
organized military forces, and reflects both the meanings of national militarized pasts. Cold War
focus of an Anglophone research community sites, for example, are increasingly wrapped in
looking primarily back in time and a focus pri- interpretative frameworks which portray nuclear
marily on activities in the global North by weaponry and war as a feature of the past, with
state actors. Yet paramilitary forces, in terms nuclear arsenals abandoned for a present of smart
of their organization and emergence, fighting weaponry and discourses about the avoidance of
strategies and tactics, and geographically con- collateral damage. It is interesting how many
stituted political understandings of the logics Cold War sites sustain a narrative suggestive of
for military action are, just like state militaries, such ideas as part of broader heritage manage-
agents of landscape change and subjects of ment regimes, although nuclear war has not been
landscapes’ works. Central questions here made safe by history and nuclear weapons
include how those effects are played out, how remain a threat. A second issue raised by post-
Woodward 47
military landscapes is that they point to the limits also pertinent. Following Megoran (2011) and
of attempts to establish appropriate narratives in Williams and McConnell (2011), how might
sites of violence. Graham and McDowell’s landscapes be constitutive and expressive of
(2007) observations about the possibility of heri- peace?
tage management and site rehabilitation as a
zero-sum game (made in the context of post- III Explorations of military
conflict Northern Ireland) are instructive here.
Notwithstanding the observations below, there
landscapes and their contributions
remain questions about the limits to the healing to military studies
narratives of post-conflict resolution encapsu- The study of military landscapes proceeds, then,
lated in the interpretative frameworks through through attention to a very great range of topics.
which many post-military sites are managed as Yet evident from the review above is the preva-
heritage and history. lence of certain foci in terms of the materialities
The fifth area for future research concerns the and temporalities through which researchers
possibilities within military landscapes for resist- engage with the topic, evident for example in
ing and countering hegemonic narratives about the dominance of studies of memorial land-
military power and authority. Edensor’s (2005) scapes and of landscape reconstruction within
observations about the potential of affective the field. This is not explained solely by the dis-
memory for countering hegemonic narratives ciplinary backgrounds of those engaged with
around ruins and heritage are interesting to con- military landscape research, although the field
sider with reference to the potential for counter- is informed significantly by those writing within
hegemonic narratives in military heritage and the disciplinary traditions of environmental and
ruins. Rose’s (2006: 538) argument about land- military history, archaeology, historical and cul-
scape as ‘a presence whose object-like appear- tural geography and heritage studies.1 There are
ance needs to be thought’ raises interesting two further issues at play. The first of these con-
possibilities for thinking through the underst- cerns the possibilities for investigation of mili-
anding of military landscapes embodied and tary landscape topics, in terms of access to
experienced by military personnel on active oper- sites, materials and people as research subjects;
ations. Personnel engage with landscape, but not there are significant and serious access issues
necessarily in ways supportive of dominant mili- which shape the possibilities for research and
tary modes of understanding, and we should be which go some way to explaining why the body
alert to their small acts of resistance and the enact- of military landscape research looks the way it
ment of community and solidarity in the face of does. The second concerns the intention and
the power and authority of military institutions orientation of military landscape studies, many
as this is played out across landscapes (Wood- of which are concerned less with systemic
ward and Jenkings, 2012). We can consider also understandings of militarism and militarization
the opportunities that the study of military land- and more with ‘military’ as a given, functional
scapes offers for thinking through the moral category. It is to these two issues that I now turn.
ideologies expressed in these places and for con- The exploration of landscapes is primarily an
sidering how they might contribute to an ethics of exercise in looking, in visual engagement and
peace, as Ahn (2010) suggests with reference to interaction (although this is not absolute – mili-
the Demilitarized Zone separating North and tary landscapes are also soundscapes, as Cocroft
South Korea. Koopman’s (2008) advocacy of the and Wilson, 2006, explain). The most commonly
role of the scholar-activist in bearing witness used methods and techniques for looking at mil-
to violence and violation at militarized sites is itary landscapes are of course those deployed by
military personnel themselves, to assess terrain Because of the availability of archive sources,
in order to ascertain appropriate strategies and we know much more about how, in organizational
tactics for the deployment of military force terms, both military techniques and geographical
(Woodward, 2004: 104–108). Yet there is scant methods for surveying landscapes developed
literature on how, exactly, military readings of the through an intertwined history, and the mobiliza-
landscape inform military practice, particularly tion of geographers and geography for war efforts
fieldcraft. That said, some interesting observa- has been well documented (see Barnes, 2006;
tions drawing on contemporary military experi- Barnes and Farish, 2006; Clout and Gosme,
ence to understand Roman military strategies 2003; Farish, 2005; Maddrell, 2008; Oldfield
and tactics have been made with regards to a read- et al., 2011; Rose and Clatworthy, 2007). The ori-
ing of the military landscape of Hadrian’s Wall, gins of the systematic mapping of Britain lie with
in the north of present-day England (Corby, military objectives following the 1745 Jacobite
2010). See also Robinson and Mills’ (2012) uprising and state objectives of subduing internal
examination of the observational practices of the dissent and establishing territorial control (Ander-
Home Guard in Second World War Britain. We son, 2009; Hewitt, 2010). Aerial photography as a
can also look to other disciplinary engagements tool of landscape surveying was pioneered ini-
with military praxis, such as Stanton’s ethno- tially for military use during the First World
graphic study of how soldiers encounter, and are War; O.G.S. Crawford learnt the technique while
socialized by, the spaces of social activity (Stan- mobilized as a navigator in the Royal Flying
ton, 1996), or Hockey’s ethnography of young Corps during the First World War (Hauser,
infantry personnel as they read and negotiate the 2008); and the techniques of camouflage which
landscapes of the training area, the barracks and enabled fighting forces to blend into the landscape
operations (Hockey, 1986). In terms of military and elude visibility from above started to be devel-
personnel’s practices of looking at landscapes, oped during this time (Forsyth, 2012). J.K. St
we can also include interpretative practices of Joseph, the curator of the Cambridge University
meaning-making through which personnel make air photography collection, served during the
sense of the landscapes in which they operate, in Second World War as an air reconnaissance ana-
terms of the imaginations of home prompted by lyst (Muir, 1999). J.B. Jackson served as an intel-
their war experience (Hoffenberg, 2001; see also ligence officer with the US armed forces, making
Farish, 2001, on the parallel experiences of war use of maps, aerial photographs and other sources
correspondents), and how these practices reso- of information about Europe ahead of the Allied
nate in both personal memory and in shared regi- advance. Jackson also recognized the environ-
mental narratives (Brighton, 2004). But sustained mental awareness developed by soldiers in the
analysis of how military personnel actually look field in terms of their receptivity to the landscape
at and interact with landscapes of operations is (Jackson, 1980, in Pearson et al., 2010b). Tech-
notable by its absence. This is primarily an access niques of air photo interpretation continue to be
and experience issue – getting access to serving important for landscape investigation, as one of
military personnel sufficient to draw conclusions a number of remote sensing techniques, not least
about their landscape readings is difficult because for the investigation of military sites (Crutchley,
of the nature of the work and the closed nature of 2009; Masters and Stichelbaut, 2009). We can
military organizations. It is worth noting the mil- also consider mapping, to which a more critical
itary backgrounds of those who have written on gaze has been applied. The military applications
this issue – Corby and Hockey both write as for- of cartographic knowledge and techniques have
mer soldiers, hence their insights into experiential been instrumental in facilitating war; see, for
engagements with landscape. example, Fedman and Karacas’ (2012)
Woodward 49
exploration of the utility of cartography and carto- (Schofield and Anderton, 2000), and this brings
graphers in the aerial bombing of Japan by US danger in the form of too-partial accounts of
forces during the Second World War. The military activities when some may leave no trace (Scho-
origins of Geographical Information Systems are field, 2009). There is a more complex issue of the
well known (Cloud, 2002). Technological devel- resistances of sites to conformity with common
opments in geospatial intelligence and mapping modes of visibility; military sites can be hetero-
systems have been assessed through the lens of topic, resistant to monolithic readings despite the
critical geopolitical analysis to enable reconcep- dominance of prevailing narratives, as Gough
tualization of the landscape of the city as ‘event- (2004b) shows with reference to the Lloyds/TSB
ful’, as Gregory (2010b) describes with reference memorial relocated to the National Memorial
to US military activities in Baghdad. A related set Arboretum in central England, or as Bavidge
of questions about military modes of seeing, of (2009) shows with reference to the civic war
visuality, and of optics are also being addressed memorials of Newcastle upon Tyne. There is
as geographers grapple with the complex rela- also the fact that some military landscapes,
tionships between visuality and geopolitics (see, through their scale and substance, defy compre-
for example, Campbell, 2007; Hughes, 2007; hension in their visibility; the Thiepval memorial
MacDonald, 2006; contributions to MacDonald to the dead of the First World War, as Gough
et al., 2010). Although much of this work lies (2007) notes, resists understanding because no
beyond the core concerns of landscape inquiries image can capture its weight, its scale or the
(although see Dunlop, 2008, on visualities and the sheer quantity of names inscribed upon it. Some
administrative and logistics landscapes of air- sites seem to inoculate us against attention,
power), explorations of the co-constitutive nature local war memorials being a case in point
of geopolitics and visuality extend what we because they are just there (Benton-Short,
might think of as military landscapes. A military 2008). There is also the simultaneously prosaic
complex of technological systems for surveil- and profound issue at the heart of visually driven
lance, civilian monitoring and targeting turn oth- explorations of military landscapes, which is
erwise civilian spaces into potential battlespaces their secrecy and inaccessibility from view. In
through their anticipatory readings and assess- an inversion of military acts of fieldcraft, recon-
ment (Graham, 2010). Alongside the critique of naissance and surveillance, studying military
the technologically enabled global military landscapes through visual means requires dedi-
panopticon brought into being by the prolifera- cation, exertion and the use of the assistive tech-
tion of high-resolution satellite imagery, there is nologies of enhanced seeing (Paglen, 2006) to
also the possibility of resistance (Perkins and reveal what is otherwise unseen, and what may
Dodge, 2009a, 2009b). not officially exist (Paglen, 2009), an act of
Many military landscapes, though, are unseen probing the limits of what is knowable (Flintham,
or unseeable, and this issue of (in)visibility is 2012; Stallabrass, 2011). To be seen to be look-
critical in establishing the possibilities or other- ing at what may (or may not) be a military
wise of investigation. There is a simple issue of landscape can constitute for military authorities
absence. For example, the absence of permanent a suspicious activity with devastating conse-
or enduring marks on the ground from the quences for the fieldworker (Falah, 2007). Study-
women’s peace camp at Greenham Common, ing military landscapes can be very dangerous.
Berkshire, outside the former USAF base, means Fieldwork under fire, anyone?
that there is little to indicate this particular facet But researchers of military landscapes per-
of the history of the Cold War in Britain, nor sist, and access permits a more-than-visual
of feminist anti-nuclear protest in the 1980s mode of exploration. ‘Walk with me on Orford
Ness’, invites Davis (2008: 143) as she takes us sensual and affective constitution of landscape
through the uncanny, otherworldly landscapes – but by particular types of visitors. There is an
of the former ballistics testing range perched open question as to the possibility of fully
on the rim of East Anglia. Sidaway (2009) understanding something like military person-
invites us to share his walk along a section of the nel’s readings of landscape in the absence (with
South West Coast Path, through the urban land- a couple of notable exceptions) of informed
scapes of militarized Plymouth where ‘the understanding by civilian researchers of what
repercussions of military violence are folded ethnomethodologists would term ‘members’
into the texture of everyday urban life, where methods’ and the development of professional
we are touched by multiple and overlapping tra- vision. Established epistemologies for the read-
gedies operating at different scales and intensi- ing of landscapes as texts have in turn prompted
fied in different sites’ (p. 1094). ‘Just observe, a wealth of studies – of particular types of mili-
engage, and think’, recommend Harrison and tary landscapes. There is a question here about
Schofield (2010: 7), advocating fieldwork of the how the practicalities and limits of access to a
contemporary past through the experience and wider range of sites (or information about such
encounter with spaces. Although the motiva- sites) in effect shape what we understand military
tions and demands of soldiering and field- landscapes to be. The dominance already noted
walking are very different, just occasionally of military memorial landscapes within the liter-
commonalities emerge. Infantry personnel ature may be explained (as indicated) by the
‘switch on’ as they proceed to patrol (Hockey, demands of the landscapes themselves, but it is
2009), an embodied sensory experience, land- also entirely possible that the ready accessibility
scape phenomenology in practice. Walking on of such sites opens them up for study in ways that
military landscapes, a popular tourist practice other landscapes deny. We know about that
of sensory engagement, has parallels too in the which access allows us to know. This access
soldiers’ deployment and patrol, as Stein may be granted, to varying degrees, and the
(2008) notes with reference to Israeli personnel boundaries of possibility are pushed by some as
in the occupied territories making sense of their acts of resistance to the formal controls over
location through the tourist gaze (see also space exerted by military institutions. But more
Woodward et al., 2010). Being in military land- often access is restricted, very limited or is sim-
scapes is affectual and emotional; and, while we ply not possible (or possibly even ethical). What
can be lulled by the safety of civilian passage we understand military landscapes to be, and
through military spaces as fieldworkers, this is how we chose to look at them, are shaped quite
a privilege accorded to few. Military landscapes fundamentally by the fact that these landscapes
can be terrifying for those caught up in bombing involve engagement with state capacities for the
and blitz (Sebald, 1999; Woodward, 2007), and execution of lethal violence; the very nature of
anticipatory affects are integral to the politics of military landscapes shapes how they might be
fear at the heart of current regimes of war on ter- investigated.
ror (Anderson, 2010). These practices associated with the explora-
How we look at military landscapes pro- tion of military landscapes are of wider signifi-
vokes interesting questions about the limits of cance, not just for the knowledge they generated
possible knowledge of these landscapes. More about what military landscapes are and for the
phenomenological and post-phenomenological insights they brought to wider debates about
approaches to landscape have established the methods in military and landscape research. In
validity of the singular, individual, personal prioritizing the visual and the experiential, and
experience at the core of explorations of the in focusing so directly on ‘military’ as a social
Woodward 51
rather than just a functional category, there is planning. The key insight brought to critical
much in current military landscape studies indi- military studies from a perspective of landscape
cating their utility (and the utility of conceptua- is to show how military power is spatially and
lizations of landscape more broadly) in temporally constituted. Following Mitchell
unpacking the category of ‘military’. This con- (2003, 2005), to see military power at work in
tribution is of great potential significance to a landscape requires attention not only to the
wider military studies within social science. landscape in and of itself with attention to its
‘Critical military studies’ is a term being used, symbols and metaphors, but also to the social
increasingly, to describe scholarship on mili- relations which make possible a military land-
tary, defence and security issues (the terms are scape’s ability to function in support of a range
not conflated) which prioritizes an understanding of exclusionary, oppressive and violent social
of military processes and practices as the out- practices associated with ideologies of militar-
come of social life and political contestation, ism. The study of landscape brings to critical
rather than as a given, functional category. military studies an appreciation of the textured,
Drawing to a significant degree on a conceptua- spatialized, placed, experiential and embodied
lization of militarism as simultaneously discur- nature of militarism and militarization, its ori-
sive, ideological and material (Basham, 2013; gins and its consequences made visible and tan-
Gusterson, 2007; Higate and Henry, 2009; Lutz, gible. It grounds – quite literally – the insights of
2002; Woodward, 2004, 2005), critical military critical military studies about the contradictory
studies is necessarily interdisciplinary, examin- nature of militarism and militarization, and
ing military practices and institutions within makes visible the endless stabilization and rein-
their political, social, economic and cultural con- forcement strategies of military power as it
texts, informed by a range of methodological seeks to cope with its inherent contradictions.
approaches and underpinned by conceptual and It raises questions of temporality, of the reach
analytic frameworks which question the nature, of military power across time (environmental
effects and significance of military organization change, memorial practices, and the celebration
and armed force, and of militarism and militari- of redundant sites as heritage are examples), and
zation. It has emerged in response to the limita- of the repetition of militarizing practices across
tions (conceptual, empirical, political) of more space and time.2 It also raises questions of scale
traditional scholarship on the military, with its and connectivity between local individual sites,
focus on the efficiencies of military actors and subnational or regional practices of defence,
actions and on the possibility of greater demo- and national military and defence policies, all
cratic oversight of state violence (Belkin, 2011, within the context of global geopolitical rela-
2012; see also Barkawi and Brighton, 2011). tions (Strange and Walley, 2007). As Davis
There are clear parallels here with the emergence (2011) notes with reference to Bikini Atoll
of a critical military geography as a reaction to in the Pacific, the global geography of the US
the underpinning assumptions marking a more military cannot be understood without looking
traditional military geography assistive to mili- more closely at the local sites where the
tary power and priorities (Woodward, 2005). global apparatus of military power ‘touches the
Analyses of landscape issues are starting to ground’ (p. 215), and studying phenomena at
make a contribution to the wider critical mili- one scale necessarily requires that attention is
tary studies project – see, for example, the work given to processes at other scales. The potential
of Farish or Graham, already cited, exploring force of emergent agendas for military land-
how military priorities, objectives and under- scape studies outlined above lies with their abil-
standings have shaped urban and regional ities to capture the experiential, spatial and
scalar phenomena and relations through which this. Bernazzoli and Flint (2009: 450) argue that
such landscapes are constituted, and a wider ‘militarization stresses the military as a primary
contribution to the development of a more crit- actor and thus poses the danger of obscuring the
ical approach to studies of the military. larger, more overarching upheavals . . . of which
it is but one part’, drawing on Cowen and
Smith’s (2009) arguments about the replace-
IV The specificity of military in ment of the ‘geopolitical social’ with the geoe-
military landscape studies conomic as an organizing principle for under-
Why do we have to look at military landscapes? standing the broader effects of the neoliberal
Earlier and in passing, it was noted that the state. Evidence for this new way of thinking and
terminologies of ‘military’ and ‘security’ are its effects is found in the case of the private
increasingly used interchangeably. The issue of security industry as a source of armed power
terminological and conceptual utility has been ostensibly external to the state. Yet, as Leander
prompted by doubts about the analytic purchase (2005) argues, what the private security industry
of the terminologies of militarism and militariza- does above all else is empower a more military
tion, and the advocacy of their replacement with understanding of security. The geoeconomic
the terminologies and concepts of security, 21st century rests just as firmly on state-
securitism and securitization on grounds of over- sanctioned military capability as did the older
lap, extension, scale and analytic potential (Ber- geopolitical orders of the 20th century. The mil-
nazzoli and Flint, 2009). At first sight, there is a itary remains a primary actor.
certain appeal to this argument that securitization There is a danger, too, that the critical insights
‘allows for a broader range of actors and arenas, of scholars of security – whose work has been
as it does not limit the scholar to exclusive con- instrumental in outlining the political conse-
sideration of the formal military institution’ (p. quences of the rise of securitism and the security
450). The terminologies of security and securiti- state – get lost in the subsuming of military
zation are certainly pervasive and popular within within security. Long-running debates about the
both public and academic discourse to denote the framing and conceptualization of ‘security’ (see
ever-expanding efforts of certain states to exert CASE collective, 2006) involve, for example,
control, materially, virtually and biopolitically. questions about the emergence of human security
But we should be cautious about abandoning as a focus of inquiry from pre-existing state secu-
too hastily the terminologies of militarism with rity debates, and the failures of this paradigm
reference to the types of landscape under con- shift to produce the changes advocated by critical
sideration here. The language of security and scholarship (Christie, 2010). Also, security stud-
securitization is the language of fear and threat ies has experienced a splintering and reconfi-
beyond the visibility of the military, and the def- guration of its analytic gaze when faced with
inition of issues as security problems can con- issues such as food security (Shepherd, 2012)
flate issues and legitimize reactions in ways and energy security (Cuită, 2010). The categories
that are problematic for public accountability of ‘military’ and ‘security’, ‘militarism’ and
(Mawdsley, 2012). We should be alert to the ‘securitism’, and ‘militarization’ and ‘securitiza-
efficiency of the neoliberal state in effecting tion’ are distinct, and the benefits of marking the
new methods for deploying armed force intern- distinctions (and thus the pervasive march of
ally and externally, and the associated practices securitization) outweigh the convenience of
which legitimize such actions in order to secure lumping these terms together.
neoliberal state interests (Giroux, 2004), and the There is an argument here too about the ina-
renaming of ‘military’ as ‘security’ is part of dvisability of retro-fitting a contemporary
Woodward 53
terminology and conceptualization (security) – how such binaries are constructed by the state
onto past wars and practices of militarization, and mobilized across time and space. This is a sig-
or present wars which are, quite simply, military nificant issue for the study of military landscapes,
armed conflicts, because of what we would lose because one of the most intriguing questions about
in terms of analysis and understanding. The such landscapes is the extent to which they are (or
battlefields of the First World War and the are not) seen, portrayed, understood and experi-
observation sangars of Helmand province in enced as ‘military’ or ‘civilian’. This is an empiri-
Afghanistan are not security landscapes. They cal question which lies at the heart of what
are military landscapes because they are about military landscapes might be. To illustrate, con-
the state-sanctioned use of lethal force for polit- sider the ‘militarization’ of the ‘civilian’ high
ical objectives. Furthermore, it is the specificity street of the market town of Royal Wootton Bas-
of military violence, precisely because of its sett in Wiltshire through the passage of hearses
state-sanctioned origins, which leads to particu- bearing the bodies of British Afghanistan war
lar landscape effects (and indeed affects), and dead, and the function of this temporary ritual in
this is a necessary and legitimate central focus legitimizing loss of life (see Jenkings et al.,
of inquiry. We should not temper the analytic 2012). Consider, alternatively, how landscapes
tools we have to study these phenomena. bearing the imprint of now-obsolete military
A key argument mobilized in favour of the use infrastructures, such as the ‘coastal crust’ fortifi-
of the terminologies of security over military is cations of the Second World War around Britain,
that raised about a ‘false binary’, given that ‘the continue to assert these places as contributors to
language of militarization problematically the war effort and thus militarize these spaces in
implies separate civilian and military spheres’ the present despite their total obsolescence in mil-
(Bernazzoli and Flint, 2009: 449). This, in the itary terms. The point of looking at landscapes
authors’ view, neither reflects an observable real- such as this is not only to describe and explain
ity whereby military and civilian activities are them, but also to use them to ask more abstract
intertwined, nor assists with understanding mili- questions about how the categories of military and
tary activities and their effects. While this argu- civilian come to be defined in opposition or con-
ment might have initial appeal (the privatization junction with each other, in different times and
and subcontracting of military functions to the places, and whether (or not) these conjunctions
extent that they may look civilian is illustrative then raise questions about the legitimacy or other-
here), the notion of the binary as false and obfus- wise of the state pursuit of armed violence.
catory misses the point about what binaries are,
and what they do. Binaries, such as oppositions Acknowledgements
between military/civilian and military/society, are I would like to thank Daniel Bos for his research
better understood as discursive constructions used assistance, and my colleagues in the Power, Space,
strategically and tactically to bring categories Politics cluster, School of Geography, Politics and
such as ‘military’ and ‘civilian’ into being (Wood- Sociology, Newcastle University, for sharing their
ideas with me about military landscapes over the
ward and Winter, 2007; see also Loyd, 2011).
long gestation of this paper, in particular Daniel Bos,
Such binaries are necessary (organizationally,
Neil Jenkings, Ann Murphy, Matthew Rech and Ali-
pragmatically, politically) for those charged son Williams. My thanks to Dave Passmore and Jus-
by the state with executing lethal violence, and tin Sikora for insights into combat archaeology and
necessary for the imagination of structures of battlefield heritage studies, respectively. I would
democratic oversight within the liberal state. The also like to thank the students who over the years
really interesting question is not whether such have taken my undergraduate modules on Military
binaries are ‘true’ or ‘false’, but rather their effects Landscapes and Environments, and Militarism:
Space and Society, and who have prompted my Anderson B (2010) Morale and the affective geographies
thinking on military landscapes in multiple and var- of the ‘war on terror’. Cultural Geographies 17:
ious ways. This paper is dedicated to Ruth and 219–236.
Patrick Painter, who have asked many times why Anderson C (2009) State imperatives: Military mapping in
we have to look at military landscapes. Scotland, 1689–1770. Scottish Geographical Journal
125: 4–24.
Funding Atherton S (2009) Domesticating military masculinities:
This research received no specific grant from any Home, performance and the negotiation of identity.
funding agency in the public, commercial, or not- Social and Cultural Geography 10: 821–836.
for-profit sectors. Bagaeen S (2006) Redeveloping former military sites:
Competitiveness, urban sustainability and public par-
Notes ticipation. Cities 23: 339–352.
1. Note that military landscapes invite also the attention of Barkawi T and Brighton S (2011) Powers of war: Fighting,
travel writers, journalists, poets, novelists, film-makers, knowledge and critique. International Political Sociol-
photographers, and visual and sound artists (see Flintham, ogy 5: 126–143.
2012; Gregory, 2010a; Ingram, 2011; Woodward, 2010). Barnes TJ (2006) Geographical intelligence: American
2. Consider, for example, W.G. Hoskins’ oft-quoted lament geographers and research and analysis in the Office
for a certain type of English rurality bearing the imprints of Strategic Services 1941–1945. Journal of Historical
of the Cold War: ‘What else has happened in the imme- Geography 32: 149–168.
morial landscape of the English countryside? Airfields Barnes TJ and Farish M (2006) Between regions: Science,
have flayed it bare wherever there are level, well- militarism and American geography from world war to
drained stretches of land, above all in eastern England. Cold War. Annals of the Association of American Geo-
Poor devastated Lincolnshire and Suffolk! And those graphers 96: 807–826.
long gentle lines of the dip-slope of the Cotswolds, those Basham V (2013) War, Identity and the Liberal State:
misty uplands of the sheep-grey oolite, how they have Everyday Experiences of the Geopolitical in the Armed
lent themselves to the villainous requirements of the new Forces. Abingdon: Routledge.
age! Over them drones, day after day, the obscene shape Bavidge E (2009) Heterotopias of memory: Cultural mem-
of the atom-bomber, laying a trail like a filthy slug upon ory in and around Newcastle upon Tyne. PhD thesis,
Constable’s and Gainsborough’s sky. England of the University of Sunderland.
Nissen hut, the ‘pre-fab’, and the electric fence, of the Beck J (2009) Dirty Wars: Landscape, Power and Waste in
high barbed wire around some unmentionable devil- Western American Literature. Lincoln, NE: University
ment; England of the arterial by-pass, treeless and stink- of Nebraska Press.
ing of diesel oil, murderous with lorries; England of the Beck J (2011) Concrete ambivalence: Inside the bunker
Otmoor of the marshlands of Lincolnshire; England of complex. Cultural Politics 7: 79–102.
battle-training areas on the Breckland heaths, and tanks Belkin A (2011) What is Critical Military Studies? Com-
crashing through empty ruined Wiltshire villages; Eng- mentary presented to ‘Doing Military Research’ work-
land of high explosives falling upon the prehistoric shop, Newcastle University, June.
monuments of Dartmoor. Barbaric England of the scien- Belkin A (2012) Bring Me Men: Military Masculinity and
tists, the military men, and the politicians; let us turn the Benign Façade of American Empire, 1898–2001.
away and contemplate the past before all is lost to the London: Hurst.
vandals’ (Hoskins, 1985: 299). Hoskins’ lament could Bennett JA (2001) War, emergency and the environment:
sustain the substitution of England’s place-names for Fiji, 1939–1946. Environment and History 7:
those of contemporary war-marked Iraq or Afghanistan. 255–287.
Bennett L (2011a) The Bunker: Metaphor, materiality and
References management. Culture and Organization 17: 155–173.
Ahn I (2010) Deconstructing the DMZ: Derrida, Levinas Bennett L (2011b) Bunkerology – a case study in the the-
and the phenomenology of peace. Cooperation and ory and practice of urban exploration. Environment and
Conflict 45: 205–223. Planning D: Society and Space 29: 421–434.
Woodward 55
Benton-Short L (2006) Politics, public space, and memor- Clout H and Gosme C (2003) The Naval Intelligence
ials: The brawl on the Mall. Urban Geography 27: Handbooks: A monument in geographical writing.
297–329. Progress in Human Geography 27: 153–173.
Benton-Short L (2007) Bollards, bunkers, and barriers: Coaffee J, O’Hare P, and Hawkesworth M (2009) The vis-
Securing the National Mall in Washington DC. Environ- ibility of (in)security: The aesthetics of planning urban
ment and Planning D: Society and Space 25: 424–446. defences against terrorism. Security Dialogue 40:
Benton-Short L (2008) Monuments and memories. In Hall 289–511.
T, Hubbard P, and Short JR (eds) The Sage Companion Cocroft W and Wilson LK (2006) Archaeology and art at
to the City. London: SAGE, 87–105. Spadeadam Rocket Establishment (Cumbria). In Scho-
Bernazzoli R and Flint C (2009) Guest editorial. From field J, Klausmeier A, and Purbrick L (eds) Re-
militarization to securitization: Finding a concept that Mapping the Field: New Approaches in Conflict
works. Political Geography 28: 449–450. Archaeology. Bonn: Westkreuz-Verlag, 15–21.
Bernazzoli R and Flint C (2010) Embodying the garrison Cole T (2010) Military presences, civilian absences: Bat-
state? Everyday geographies of militarization in Amer- tling nature at the Sennybridge Training Area, 1940–
ican society. Political Geography 29: 157–166. 2008. Journal of War and Culture Studies 3: 215–235.
Bevan R (2006) The Destruction of Memory: Architecture Corby M (2010) Hadrian’s Wall and the defence of North
at War. London: Reaktion. Britain. Archaeologia Aeliana Fifth Series Vol.
Boyd GA and Linehan D (2012) (eds) Ordnance: War þ XXXIX: 9–13.
Architecture & Space. Farnham: Ashgate. Coward M (2009) Network-centric violence, critical infra-
Brighton S (2004) The embodiment of war: Reflections on structure and the urbanization of security. Security Dia-
the tour of duty. Journal for Cultural Research 8: 51–54. logue 40: 399–418.
Brunn S (1987) A world of peace and military landscapes. Cowen D and Smith N (2009) After geopolitics? From the
Journal of Geography November–December: 253–262. geopolitical social to geoeconomics. Antipode 41: 22–48.
Bushaway B (1992) Name upon name: The Great War and Crutchley S (2009) Ancient and modern: Combining dif-
remembrance. In Porter R (ed.) Myths of the English. ferent remote sensing techniques to interpret historic
Cambridge: Polity Press, 136–167. landscapes. Journal of Cultural Heritage 10: 65–71.
Campbell D (2007) Geopolitics and visuality: Sighting the Cuită F (2010) Conceptual notes on energy security: Total
Darfur conflict. Political Geography 26: 357–382. or banal security? Security Dialogue 41: 123–144.
Carman J and Carman P (2006) Bloody Meadows: Investi- Davis JS (2005) Representing place: ‘Deserted isles’ and
gating Landscapes of Battle. Stroud: The History Press. the reproduction of Bikini Atoll. Annals of the Associ-
CASE (Critical Approaches to Security in Europe) collec- ation of American Geographers 95: 607–625.
tive (2006) Critical approaches to security in Europe: A Davis JS (2007) Scales of Eden: Conservation and pristine
networked manifesto. Security Dialogue 37: 443–487. devastation on Bikini Atoll. Environment and Planning
Chandrasekaran R (2006) Imperial Life in the Emerald D: Society and Space 25: 213–235.
City. New York: Knopf. Davis JS, Hayes-Conroy JS, and Jones VM (2007) Military
Christie R (2010) Critical voices and human security: To pollution and natural purity: Seeing nature and know-
endure, to engage or to critique? Security Dialogue ing contamination in Vieques, Puerto Rico. GeoJour-
41: 169–190. nal 69: 165–179.
Clarke J (2008) Cenotaphs and cypress tress: Commemor- Davis Sasha (2011) The US military base network and con-
ating the citizen-soldier in the Year II. French History temporary colonialism: Power projection, resistance
22: 217–240. and the quest for operational unilateralism. Political
Clayton D (2012) Militant tropicality: War, revolution and Geography 30: 215–224.
the reconfiguration of ‘the tropics’ c.1940–c.1975. Davis Sophia (2008) Military landscapes and secret sci-
Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers ence: The case of Orford Ness. Cultural Geographies
18: 180–192. 15: 143–149.
Cloud J (2002) American cartographic transformations Davis Sophia (2012a) Cold War science in ruins: Bound-
during the Cold War. Cartography and Geographic aries, visibility and movement at Orfordness. Unpub-
Information Science 29: 261–282. lished paper, available from author.
Davis Sophia (2012b) Britain an island again: Mobilising Flintham M (2011) Parallel landscapes: A spatial and crit-
landscape in the early history of radar. Unpublished ical study of militarised sites in the United Kingdom.
paper, available from author. PhD thesis, Royal College of Art, London.
Dimitrova S (2005) ‘Taming the death’: The culture of Flintham M (2012) The military-pastoral complex: Con-
death (1915–1918) and its remembering and commem- temporary representations of militarism in the land-
orating through First World War soldier monuments in scape. Tate Online Research Papers Issue 17.
Bulgaria (1917–44). Social History 30: 175–194. Available at: http://www.tate.org.uk/research/publica-
Dittmer J (2010) Popular Culture, Geopolitics and Iden- tions/tate-papers/military-pastoral-complex-contempo
tity. Plymouth: Rowman and Littlefield. rary-representations-militarism.
Doss E (2008) War, memory and the public mediation of Flusty S, Dittmer J, Gilbert E, et al. (2008) Interventions in
affect: The National World War II memorial and Amer- banal imperialism. Political Geography 27: 617–629.
ican imperialism. Memory Studies 1: 227–250. Forsyth I (2012) From dazzle to the desert: A cultural-
Doyle P and Bennett M (2002) (eds) Fields of Battle: Ter- historical geography of camouflage. PhD thesis, Uni-
rain in Military History. Amsterdam: Kluwer. versity of Glasgow.
Dudley M (2012) An Environmental History of the Foster J (2004) Creating a temenos, positing ‘South Afri-
UK Defence Estate: 1945 to the Present. London: canism’: Material memory, landscape practice and the
Continuum. circulation of identity at Delville Wood. Cultural Geo-
Dunkley R, Morgan N, and Westwood S (2010) Visiting graphies 11: 259–290.
the trenches: Exploring meanings and motivations in Fuchs R (2004) Sites of memory in the Holy Land: The
battlefield tourism. Tourism Management 32: 860–868. design of the British war cemeteries in Mandate Pales-
Dunlop G (2008) The war office: Everyday environments tine. Journal of Historical Geography 30: 643–664.
and war logistics. Cultural Politics 4: 155–160. Gallaher C (2012) Risk and private military work. Anti-
Edensor T (2005) The ghosts of industrial ruins: Ordering pode 44: 783–805.
and disordering memory in excessive space. Environ- Gillem M (2007) America Town: Building the Outposts of
ment and Planning D: Society and Space 23: 829–849. Empire. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota
Evans M (2009) Lethal genes: The urban military impera- Press.
tive and western strategy in the early twenty-first cen- Giroux HA (2004) The Terror of Neoliberalism: Authori-
tury. Journal of Strategic Studies 32: 515–552. tarianism and the Eclipse of Democracy. Boulder:
Falah GW (2007) Guest editorial. The politics of doing geo- Paradigm.
graphy: 23 days in the hell of Israeli detention. Environ- Gold J and Revill G (2000) (eds) Landscapes of Defence.
ment and Planning D: Society and Space 25: 587–593. Harlow: Prentice Hall.
Farish M (2001) Modern witnesses: Foreign correspon- Gough P (2000) From heroes’ groves to parks of peace:
dents, geopolitical vision, and the First World War. Landscapes of remembrance, protest and peace. Land-
Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers scape Research 25: 213–228.
26: 273–287. Gough P (2002) ‘Invicta Pax’ monuments, memorials and
Farish M (2003) Disaster and decentralization: American peace: An analysis of the Canadian Peacekeeping
cities and the Cold War. Cultural Geographies 10: Monument, Ottawa. International Journal of Heritage
125–148. Studies 8: 210–223.
Farish M (2005) Archiving areas: The ethnogeographic Gough P (2004a) Sites in the imagination: The Beaumont
board and the Second World War. Annals of the Asso- Hamel Newfoundland memorial on the Somme. Cul-
ciation of American Geographers 95: 663–679. tural Geographies 11: 235–258.
Farish M and Lackenbauer PW (2009) High modernism in Gough P (2004b) Corporations and commemoration: First
the Arctic: Planning Frobisher Bay and Inuvik. Journal World War remembrance, Lloyds TSB and the
of Historical Geography 35: 517–544. National Memorial Arboretum. International Journal
Fedman D and Karacas C (2012) A cartographic fade to of Heritage Studies 10: 435–455.
black: Mapping the destruction of urban Japan during Gough P (2007) ‘Contested memories: contested site’:
World War II. Journal of Historical Geography 38: Newfoundland and its unique heritage on the Western
306–328. Front. The Round Table 96: 693–705.
Woodward 57
Graham B and McDowell S (2007) Meaning in the maze: Higate P and Henry M (2009) Insecure Spaces: Peace-
The heritage of Long Kesh. Cultural Geographies 14: keeping in Liberia, Kosovo and Haiti. London: Zed
343–368. Books.
Graham S (2009) Cities as battlespace: The new military Higate P and Henry M (2011) Militarising spaces:
urbanism. City 13: 383–402. A geographical exploration of Cyprus. In Kirsch S
Graham S (2010) Cities Under Siege: the New Military and Flint C (eds) Reconstructing Conflict: Integrat-
Urbanism. London: Verso. ing War and Post-War Geographies. Farnham: Ash-
Graham S (2012) When life itself is war: On the urbani- gate, 133–155.
zation of military and security doctrine. International Hippensteel S (2008) Reconstruction of a civil war land-
Journal of Urban and Regional Research 36: 136– scape: Little Folly Island, South Carolina. Geoarch-
155. aeology 23: 824–841.
Gregory D (2010a) War and peace. Transactions of the Hockey J (1986) Squaddies: Portrait of a Subculture. Exe-
Institute of British Geographers 35: 154–186. ter: University of Exeter Press.
Gregory D (2010b) Seeing Red: Baghdad and the eventful Hockey J (2009) ‘Switch on’: Sensory work in the infantry.
city. Political Geography 29: 266–279. Work, Employment and Society 23: 477–493.
Gulley HE (1993) Women and the lost cause: Preserving a Hoegaerts J (2010) Manoeuvring men: Masculinity as spa-
Confederate identity in the American Deep South. tially defined readability at the grandes manoeuvres of
Journal of Historical Geography 19: 125–141. the Belgian army, 1882–1883. Gender Place and Cul-
Gusterson H (2007) Anthropology and militarism. Annual ture 17: 249–268.
Review of Anthropology 36: 155–175. Hoffenberg PH (2001) Landscape, memory and the Aus-
Harrison R and Schofield J (2010) After Modernity: tralian war experience, 1915–18. Journal of Contempo-
Archaeological Approaches to the Contemporary Past. rary History 36: 111–131.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. Höglund J (2008) Electronic empire: Orientalism revisited
Harrison S and Passmore DG (2008) The Ardennes cam- in the military shooter. Games Studies 8(1). Available
paigns of 1944: Some theoretical considerations on the at: http://gamestudies.org/0801/articles/hoeglund.
role of topography. In Nathanail CP, Abrahart RJ, and Hoskins WG (1985) The Making of the English Landscape.
Bradshaw RP (eds) Military Geology and Geography: London: Penguin.
History and Technology. Nottingham: Land Quality Hourdequin M and Havlick D (2010) Ecological restora-
Press, 199–206. tion in context: Ethics and the naturalization of former
Hauser K (2008) Bloody Old Britain: O.G.S. Crawford and military lands. Ethics, Place and Environment 13:
the Archaeology of Modern Life. London: Granta. 1–21.
Havlick D (2007) Logics of change for military-to-wildlife Hucker J (2009) ‘Battle and burial’: Recapturing the cul-
conversions in the United States. GeoJournal 69: tural meaning of Canada’s national memorial on Vimy
151–164. Ridge. The Public Historian 31: 89–109.
Havlick D (2011) Disarming nature: Converting military Hughes R (2007) Through the looking blast: Geopolitics
lands to wildlife refuges. The Geographical Review and visual culture. Geography Compass 1: 976–994.
101: 183–200. Hurt D (2010) Reinterpreting the Washita Battlefield
Heffernan M (1995) For ever England: The Western Front National Historic Site. The Geographical Review 100:
and the politics of remembrance in Britain. Ecumene 2: 375–393.
293–323. Iles J (2003) Death, leisure and landscape: British tourism
Herman RDK (2008) Inscribing empire: Guam and the to the Western Front. In Dorrian M and Rose G (eds)
War in the Pacific National Historical Park. Political Deterritorialisations: Revisioning Landscapes and
Geography 27: 630–651. Politics. London: Black Dog Publishing, 234–243.
Hewitt R (2010) Map of a Nation: A Biography of the Ord- Inglis KS (1998) Sacred Places: War Memorials in the
nance Survey. London: Granta. Australian Landscape. Melbourne: Miegunyak Press.
Higate P (2013) The Politics of Profile and the Private Mil- Ingram A (2011) Making geopolitics otherwise: Artistic
itary and Security Contractor. Bristol: Global Insecuri- interventions in global political space. The Geographi-
ties Centre. cal Journal 177: 218–222.
Instone L (2010) Walking towards Woomera: Touring the Loyd J (2011) ‘Peace is our only shelter’: Questioning
boundaries of ‘unAustralian geographies’. Cultural domesticities of militarization and white privilege.
Geographies 17: 359–378. Antipode 43: 845–873.
Jackson JB (1980) The Necessity for Ruins and Other Topics. Lutz C (2001) Homefront: A Military City and the Ameri-
Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press. can Twentieth Century. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Jenkings KN, Megoran N, Woodward R, et al. (2012) Lutz C (2002) Making war at home in the United States:
Wootton Bassett and the political spaces of remem- Militarization and the current crisis. American Anthro-
brance and mourning. Area 44: 356–363. pologist 104: 723–735.
Jenks H (2008) Urban space, ethnic community, and MacDonald F (2006) Geopolitics and the vision thing:
national belonging: The political landscape of memory Regarding Britain and America’s first nuclear missile.
in Little Tokyo. GeoJournal 73: 231–244. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers
Johnson B (2010) A few good boys: Masculinity in a 31: 53–71.
military-style charter school. Men and Masculinities MacDonald F, Hughes R, and Dodds K (2010) (eds)
12: 575–596. Observant States: Geopolitics and Visual Culture. Lon-
Johnson N (1999) The spectacle of memory: Ireland’s don: IB Tauris.
remembrance of the Great War, 1919. Journal of His- Maddrell A (2008) The ‘Map Girls’: British women geo-
torical Geography 25: 36–36. graphers’ war work, shifting gender boundaries and
Johnson N (2003) Ireland, the Great War and the Geogra- reflections on the history of geography. Transactions
phy of Remembrance. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer- of the Institute of British Geographers 33: 127–148.
sity Press. Managhan T (2012) Highways, heroes, and secular mar-
Johnson N (2011) The contours of memory in post-conflict tyrs: The symbolics of power and sacrifice. Review of
societies: Enacting public remembrance of the bomb in International Studies 38: 97–118.
Omagh, Northern Ireland. Cultural Geographies 19: Masson E and Harden J (2009) Drumossie Moor: Memor-
237–258. ialisation, development and restoration in an evolving
Keller T (2009) The mountains roar: The Alps during the historic landscape. In Pollard T (ed.) Culloden: The
Great War. Environmental History 14: 253–274. History and Archaeology of the Last Clan Battle.
Koopman S (2008) Cutting through topologies: Crossing Barnsley: Pen and Sword, 203–217.
lines at the School of the Americas. Antipode 40: Masters P and Stichelbaut B (2009) From the air to beneath
825–847. the soil: Revealing and mapping Great War trenches at
Krahman E (2013) The United States, PMSCs and the state Ploegsteert (Comines-Warneton), Belgium. Archaeo-
monopoly on violence: Leading the way towards norm logical Prospection 16: 279–285.
change. Security Dialogue 44: 53–71. Mawdsley J (2012) Towards a Merger of the European
Lackenbauer PW and Farish M (2007) The Cold War on Defence and Security Markets? Brussels: Flemish
Canadian soil: Militarizing a northern environment. Peace Research Institute.
Environmental History 12: 920–950. Megoran N (2011) War and peace? An agenda for peace
Lahiri N (2003) Commemorating and remembering 1857: research and practice in geography. Political Geogra-
The revolt in Delhi and its afterlife. World Archaeology phy 30: 178–189.
35: 35–60. Mitchell D (2003) Cultural landscapes: Just landscapes or
Leander A (2005) The power to construct international landscapes of justice? Progress in Human Geography
security: On the significance of private military compa- 27: 787–796.
nies. Millennium 33: 803–826. Mitchell D (2005) Landscape. In Atkinson D, Jackson P,
Lisle D (2007) Encounters with partition: Tourism and Sibley D, et al. (eds) Cultural Geography: A Critical
reconciliation in Cyprus. In Purbrick L, Aulich J, and Dictionary of Key Concepts. London: IB Tauris,
Dawson G (eds) Contested Spaces: Sites, Representa- 49–58.
tions and Histories of Conflict. Basingstoke: Palgrave Moriarty C (1997) Private grief and public remembrance:
Macmillan, 94–117. British First World War memorials. In Evans M and
Lomsky-Feder E (2005) The bounded female voice in mem- Lunn K (eds) War and Memory in the Twentieth Cen-
orial ceremonies. Qualitative Sociology 28: 293–314. tury. Oxford: Berg, 125–142.
Woodward 59
Morris MS (1997) Gardens ‘for ever England’: Landscape, Pearson C (2006) The age of wood: Fuel and fighting in
identity and the First World War British cemeteries on French forests, 1940–1944. Environmental History
the Western Front. Ecumene 4: 410–434. 11: 775–803.
Muir R (1999) Approaches to Landscape. Basingstoke: Pearson C (2008) Scarred Landscapes: War and Nature in
Macmillan. Vichy France. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Muzaini H (2006) Producing/consuming memoryscapes: Pearson C (2009) A ‘watery desert’ in Vichy France: The
the genesis/politics of Second World War commemora- environmental history of the Camargue wetlands,
tion in Singapore. GeoJournal 66: 211–222. 1940–1944. French Historical Studies 32: 479–509.
Muzaini H and Yeoh B (2005a) War landscapes as ‘battle- Pearson C (2012) Researching militarised landscapes:
fields’ of collective memories: Reading the Reflections A literature review on war and the militarization of the
at Bukit Chandu, Singapore. Cultural Geographies 12: environment. Landscape Research 37: 115–133.
345–365. Pearson C, Coates P, and Cole T (2010a) (eds) Militarised
Muzaini H and Yeoh B (2005b) Contesting ‘local’ com- Landscapes: From Gettysburg to Salisbury Plain. Lon-
memoration of the Second World War: The case of the don: Continuum.
Changi chapel and museum in Singapore. Australian Pearson C, Coates P, and Cole T (2010b) Introduction:
Geographer 36: 1–17. Beneath the Camouflage: Revealing Militarised Land-
Muzaini H and Yeoh B (2005c) Reading representations of scapes. In Pearson C, Coates P, and Cole T (eds) Mili-
women’s war experiences in the Changi chapel and tarised Landscapes: From Gettysburg to Salisbury
museum, Singapore. Geoforum 36: 465–476. Plain. London: Continuum, 1–18.
Muzaini H and Yeoh B (2007) Memory-making ‘from Peluso NL and Vandergeest P (2011) Political ecologies of
below’: Rescaling remembrance at the Kranji war war and forests: Counterinsurgencies and the making of
memorial and cemetery, Singapore. Environment and national natures. Annals of the Association of American
Planning A 39: 1288–1305. Geographers 101: 587–608.
Muzaini H, Teo P, and Yeoh B (2007) Intimations of post- Perkins C and Dodge M (2009a) Satellite imagery and the
modernity in Dark tourism: The fate of history at Fort spectacle of secret spaces. Geoforum 40: 546–560.
Siloso, Singapore. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Perkins C and Dodge M (2009b) Editorial. The ‘view from
Change 5: 28–45. nowhere’? Spatial politics and cultural significance of
Oldfield J, Matless D, and Swain A (2011) The making of a high-resolution imagery. Geoforum 40: 497–501.
sub-discipline: State initiatives and the production of Philo C (2012) Security of geography/geography of secu-
British geographical studies of the Soviet Union and rity. Transactions of the Institute of British Geogra-
Eastern Europe, 1945–71. Transactions of the Institute phers 37: 1–7.
of British Geographers 36: 574–589. Pollard T (2007) Burying the hatchet? The post-combat
Osborne M (2004) Defending Britain: Twentieth-Century appropriation of battlefield spaces. In Purbrick L,
Military Structures in the Landscape. Stroud: Tempus. Aulich J, and Dawson G (eds) Contested Spaces: Sites,
Oushakine SA (2006) The politics of pity: Domesticating Representations and Histories of Conflict. Basing-
loss in a Russian province. American Anthropologist stoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 121–145.
108: 297–311. Pollard T (2009) Capturing the moment: The archaeology
Paglen T (2006) Late September in an undisclosed location of Culloden battlefield. In Pollard T (ed.) Culloden:
in the Nevada desert. Cultural Geographies 13: 293–300. The History and Archaeology of the Last Clan Battle.
Paglen T (2009) Blank Spots on the Map: The Dark Geogra- Barnsley: Pen and Sword, 130–162.
phy of the Pentagon’s Secret World. New York: Dutton. Power M (2007) Digitized virtuosity: Video war games
Palka EJ, Galgano FA, and Corson MW (2005) Operation and post 9/11 cyber-deterrence. Security Dialogue 38:
Iraqi Freedom: A military geographical perspective. 271–288.
Geographical Review 95: 373–399. Rainbird P (2003) Representing nation, dividing commu-
Passmore D and Harrison S (2008) Landscapes of the Bat- nity: The Broken Hill War Memorial, New South
tle of the Bulge: WW2 field fortifications in the Wales, Australia. World Archaeology 35: 22–34.
Ardennes forests of Belgium. Journal of Conflict Raivo PJ (2004) ‘This is where they fought’: Finnish war
Archaeology 4: 87–108. landscapes as a national heritage. In Ashplant T,
Dawson G, and Roper M (eds) Commemorating War. Stein R (2008) Souvenirs of conquest: Israeli occupations
New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 145–164. as tourist events. International Journal of Middle East
Rech M (2012) A critical geopolitics of RAF recruitment. Studies 40: 647–669.
PhD thesis, Newcastle University, UK. Steinberg MK and Taylor MJ (2003) Public memory and
Robinson J and Mills S (2012) Being observant and political power in Guatemala’s post-conflict landscape.
observed: Embodied citizenship training in the Home The Geographical Review 94: 449–468.
Guard and the Boy Scout Movement, 1907–1945. Jour- Stephens J (2007) Memory, commemoration and the
nal of Historical Geography 38: 412–423. meaning of a suburban war memorial. Journal of Mate-
Rose EPF and Clatworthy JC (2007) Specialist maps of the rial Culture 12: 241–261.
Geological Section, Inter-Service Topographical Strange I and Walley E (2007) Cold War heritage and the
Department: Aids to British military planning during conservation of military remains in Yorkshire. Interna-
World War II. Cartographic Journal 44: 13–43. tional Journal of Heritage Studies 13: 154–169.
Rose M (2006) ‘Gathering dreams of presence’: A project Switzer C and Graham B (2010) ‘Ulster’s love in letter’d
for the cultural landscape. Environment and Planning gold’: The Battle of the Somme and the Ulster Memor-
D: Society and Space 24: 537–554. ial Tower, 1918–1935. Journal of Historical Geogra-
Salter MB (2011) The geographical imaginations of video phy 36: 183–193.
games: Diplomacy, Civilization, America’s Army and Tarlow S (1999) Bereavement and Commemoration: An
Grand Theft Auto IV. Geopolitics 16: 359–388. Archaeology of Mortality. Oxford: Blackwell.
Saunders NJ (2001) Matter and memory in the landscapes Tivers J (1999) ‘The home of the British Army’: The ico-
of conflict: The Western Front 1914–1999. In Bender B nic construction of military defence landscapes. Land-
and Winer W (eds) Contested Landscapes: Movement, scape Research 24: 303–319.
Exile and Place. Oxford: Berg, 37–53. Walklate S, Mythen G, and McGarry R (2011) Witnessing
Schofield J (2009) Aftermath: Readings in the Archaeol- Wootton Bassett: An exploration in cultural victimol-
ogy of Recent Conflict. New York: Springer. ogy. Crime Media Culture 7: 149–165.
Schofield J and Anderton M (2000) The queer archaeology Weizman E (2007) Hollow Land: Israel’s Architecture of
of Green Gate: Interpreting contested space at Greenham Occupation. London: Verso.
Common Airbase. World Archaeology 32: 236–251. Williams A (2011) Reconceptualising spaces of the air:
Sebald WG (1999) On the Natural History of Destruction. Performing the multiple spatialities of UK military air-
London: Hamish Hamilton. spaces. Transactions of the Institute of British Geogra-
Shaw I (2010) Playing war. Social and Cultural Geogra- phers 36: 253–267.
phy 11: 789–803. Williams P and McConnell F (2011) Critical geographies
Shaw I and Warf B (2009) Worlds of affect: Virtual geo- of peace. Antipode 43: 927–931.
graphies of video games. Environment and Planning Wilson R (2010) The popular memory of the Western
A 41: 1332–1343. Front: Archaeology and European heritage. In Water-
Shepherd B (2012) Thinking critically about food security. son E and Watson S (eds) Culture, Heritage and Repre-
Security Dialogue 43: 195–212. sentation: Perspectives on Visuality and the Past.
Sidaway JD (2009) Shadows on the path: Negotiating geo- Farnham: Ashgate, 75–90.
politics on an urban section of Britain’s South West Wilson R (2011) Tommifying the Western Front, 1914–
Coast Path. Environment and Planning D: Society and 1918. Journal of Historical Geography 37: 263–306.
Space 27: 1091–1116. Winter J (2006) Remembering War: The Great War
Sidaway JD and Mayell P (2007) Monumental geogra- between Memory and History in the Twentieth Century.
phies: Re-situating the state. Cultural Geographies New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
14: 148–155. Winter C (2009) Tourism, social memory and the Great
Stallabrass J (2011) Negative dialectics in the Google War. Annals of Tourism Research 36: 607–626.
era: A conversation with Trevor Paglen. October Woodward R (2004) Military Geographies. Oxford:
138: 3–14. Blackwell.
Stanton G (1996) Military rock: A mis-anthropology. Cul- Woodward R (2005) From Military Geography to militar-
tural Studies 10: 270–287. ism’s geographies: Disciplinary engagements with the
Woodward 61
geographies of militarism and military activities. Prog- Woodward R and Jenkings KN (2012) ‘This place isn’t
ress in Human Geography 29: 718–740. worth the left boot of one of our boys’: Geopolitics,
Woodward R (2006) Warrior heroes and little green men: militarism and memoirs of the Afghanistan war. Polit-
Soldiers, military training and the construction of rural ical Geography 31: 495–508.
masculinities. In Bell MM, Campbell H, and Finney M Woodward R and Winter T (2007) Sexing the Soldier: The
(eds) Country Boys: Masculinity and Rural Life. Politics of Gender and the Contemporary British Army.
University Park, PA: Penn State University Press, Abingdon: Routledge.
235–250. Woodward R, Winter T, and Jenkings KN (2010) ‘I used to
Woodward R (2007) Narratives of destruction and sur- keep a camera in my top left-hand pocket’: British sol-
vival: Writing and reading about life in urban war diers, their photographs and the performance of geopo-
zones. Theory and Event 10(2). Available at: http:// litical power. In MacDonald F, Dodds K, and Hughes R
muse.jhu.edu/login?auth¼0&type¼summary&url¼/ (eds) Observant State: Geopolitics and Visuality.
journals/theory_and_event/v010/10.2woodward.html. Abingdon: Routledge, 143–166.
Woodward R (2010) Military landscapes/Militære land- Wylie J (2007) Landscape. Abingdon: Routledge.
skap: The military landscape photography of Ingrid Yamazaki T (2011) The US militarization of a ‘host’ civil-
Book and Carina Hedén. In Pearson C, Coates P, and ian society: The case of postwar Okinawa, Japan. In
Cole T (eds) Militarised Landscapes: Comparative Kirsch S and Flint C (eds) Reconstructing Conflict:
Histories and Geographies. London: Continuum, Integrating War and Post-War Geographies. Farnham:
21–38. Ashgate, 253–272.

Woodward 2013 Milita

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Woodward 2013 Milita

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Woodward 2013 Milita

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article

Progress in Human Geography

and approaches for future sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

I Introduction collection of political, social and cultural shifts

landscape study consequent on contemporary ‘militarization’ as that multi-faceted set of social,

environmental reconstruction techniques (Hip- (Farish and Lackenbauer, 2009; Lackenbauer

Landscapes of mourning and remembrance discursive and material, so we see changes to

utterly pervasive ideas about nationhood and industrial-media-entertainment complex. Given

You might also like