To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.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 saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This special issue critically reexamines the terms “resources” and “landscapes.” The introduction proposes “resource landscapes” as a heuristic framework to challenge these terms’ modern and Western-centric valences using a historical lens. To illustrate this methodology, we apply this heuristic framework to a series of case studies focused on mining in early modern Europe and the colonial Americas. The special issue as a whole focuses on the complex relationships among nature, human bodies, and landscapes; it puts in dialogue material and cultural histories of early modern Europeans and the peoples they colonized with studies of the colonization and transformation of the natural world.
This article explores responses to the expansion of rice cultivation in the sixteenth-century Duchy of Milan. Unlike newly introduced crops such as maize, for example, rice was seen as an ambiguous resource, productive and disruptive, capable of fostering growth while also generating violence, bodily disorder, and demographic decline. Relying on archival documents by administrators, clergymen, engineers, and physicians; on legislation; and on agricultural, political, and medical treatises, the article reflects on how this resource was appropriated by several actors and how these appropriations went hand in hand with ways of seeing the landscape and understanding improvement.
This article considers how opposing definitions of resources in Timothy Bright’s “The sufficiencie of English medicines” (1580) and Nicolás Monardes’s “Historia medicinal” (1574) reflect the confessionalization of the sixteenth-century Atlantic World. Monardes’s text claimed that American drugs were universally efficacious and ought to be exported broadly. Bright denied this assertion by insisting that God’s providence was particular rather than universal in scope. Yet although Bright rejected the commodification of American medicines, he nonetheless registered their value as resources. Through comparative medical experimentation, Bright argued that foreign drugs might prove that God’s differing provision for differing peoples yielded essential bodily differences.